<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0" article-type="research-article">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">AMT</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Atmospheric Measurement Techniques</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">AMT</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Atmos. Meas. Tech.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1867-8548</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/amt-15-5289-2022</article-id><title-group><article-title>Extended validation and evaluation of the OLCI–SLSTR SYNERGY aerosol product (SY_2_AOD) on Sentinel-3</article-title><alt-title>Validation of the Sentinel-3 SYNERGY aerosol product (SY_2_AOD)​​​​​​​​​​​​​​</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Validation of the Sentinel-3 SYNERGY aerosol product (SY\_2\_AOD)​​​​​​​​​​​​​​}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{L. Sogacheva et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Sogacheva</surname><given-names>Larisa</given-names></name>
          <email>larisa.sogacheva@fmi.fi</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Denisselle</surname><given-names>Matthieu</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Kolmonen</surname><given-names>Pekka</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Virtanen</surname><given-names>Timo H.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>North</surname><given-names>Peter</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Henocq</surname><given-names>Claire</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Scifoni</surname><given-names>Silvia</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Dransfeld</surname><given-names>Steffen</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Climate Programme, Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki,
00540, Finland</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>ACRI-ST, Sophia-Antipolis, 06410, France</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Global Environmental Modelling and Earth Observation (GEMEO), Dept.
of Geography,<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> Swansea University, Swansea SA28PP, UK​​​​​​​</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Serco Italia SpA for European Space Agency (ESA), European Space
Research Institute (ESRIN), 00044 Frascati, Italy</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>European Space Agency (ESA), European Space Research Institute
(ESRIN), Frascati, Italy</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Larisa Sogacheva (larisa.sogacheva@fmi.fi)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>19</day><month>September</month><year>2022</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>15</volume>
      <issue>18</issue>
      <fpage>5289</fpage><lpage>5322</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>21</day><month>March</month><year>2022</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>18</day><month>May</month><year>2022</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>21</day><month>July</month><year>2022</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>21</day><month>July</month><year>2022</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2022 Larisa Sogacheva et al.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2022</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/5289/2022/amt-15-5289-2022.html">This article is available from https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/5289/2022/amt-15-5289-2022.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/5289/2022/amt-15-5289-2022.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/5289/2022/amt-15-5289-2022.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>

      <p id="d1e174">We present the first extended validation of a new SYNERGY global aerosol product (SY_2_AOD), which is based on synergistic use of data from the Ocean and Land Color Instrument (OLCI) and the Sea and Land Surface Temperature Radiometer (SLSTR) sensors aboard the Copernicus Sentinel-3A (S3A) and Sentinel-3B (S3B) satellites. Validation covers period from 14 January 2020 to 30 September 2021. Several approaches, including statistical analysis, time series analysis, and comparison with similar aerosol products from the other spaceborne sensor, the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), were applied for validation and evaluation of S3A and S3B SY_2 aerosol products,
including aerosol optical depth (AOD) provided at different wavelengths, AOD pixel-level uncertainties, fine-mode AOD, and Angström exponent.</p>

      <p id="d1e177">Over ocean, the performance of SY_2 AOD (syAOD) retrieved at
550 nm is good: for S3A and S3B, Pearson correlation
coefficients with the Maritime Aerosol Network (MAN) component of the
AErosol RObotic NETwork (AERONET) are 0.88 and 0.85, respectively; 88.6 % and 89.5 % of pixels fit into the MODIS error envelope (EE) of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.05 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> AOD.</p>

      <p id="d1e201">Over land, correlation coefficients with AERONET AOD (aAOD) are 0.60 and
0.63 for S3A and S3B, respectively; 51.4 % and 57.9 % of pixels fit into MODIS EE. Reduced performance over land is expected since the surface
reflectance and angular distribution of scattering are higher and more
difficult to predict over land than over ocean. The results are affected by
a large number of outliers.</p>

      <p id="d1e204">Evaluation of the per-retrieval uncertainty with the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">χ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> test indicates
that syAOD prognostic uncertainties (PU) are slightly underestimated (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">χ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 3.1); if outliers are removed, PU describes the syAOD error well
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">χ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.6).</p>

      <p id="d1e251">The regional analysis of the Angström exponent, which relates to the
aerosol size distribution, shows spatial correlation with expected sources.
For 40 % of the matchups with AERONET in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) and for 60 % of the matchups in the Southern Hemisphere (SH), which fit into the AE size range of [1, 1.8], an offset between SY_2 AE
(syAE) and AERONET AE (aAE) is within <inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.25. General overestimation
of low (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5) syAE and underestimation of high (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.8)
syAE results in high (0.94, globally) overall bias.</p>

      <p id="d1e276">Good agreement (bias <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03) was observed between Sy_2 fine-mode AOD (syFMAOD) and AERONET fine-mode AOD (aFMAOD) for
aFMAOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1. At aFMAOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1, syFMAOD is considerably
underestimated (by 0.3–0.5 in different aFMAOD ranges) in the NH. In the SH, only a few aFMAOD values above 1 are measured. The fine-mode fraction (FMF) in the SY_2 AOD product (syFMF) in the range of [0, 0.7] is
overestimated; the positive offset of 0.3–0.5 for low (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.25) FMF
gradually decreases.</p>

      <p id="d1e307">Differences between the annual and seasonal AOD values from SY_2
and MODIS (mod) Dark Target and Deep Blue products are within 0.02 for the
study area (30<inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S–60<inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 80<inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W–45<inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E). The agreement is better over ocean; however, a difference up to 0.6 exists between syFMF and modFMF. Over bright land surface (Saharan desert) the difference in AOD between the two products is
highest (up to 0.11); the sign of the difference varies over time and space.</p>

      <p id="d1e346">For both S3A and S3B AOD products, validation statistics are often slightly
better in the Southern Hemisphere. In general, the performance of S3B is
slightly better.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e358">The concern about climate change (e.g. Bergquist and Warshaw, 2019) along
with a willingness to reduce its effects (e.g. Leiserowitz et al., 2020;
Hoffmann et al., 2022) have been of growing interest during the past decades.
Global models introduce different scenarios for climate change (Arbor et
al., 2021; Meehl et al., 2007), which are often based on the historical
records and trends. Satellite data, including aerosols, provide unique
global data on the Earth's surface and atmosphere; they are assimilated into
global and regional models (Khaki et al., 2020; Eyre et al., 2022) and used
for model evaluation (Gliß et al., 2021).</p>
      <p id="d1e361">Product quality depends on instrument specifications and applicability of
the retrieval approaches. Despite having an advantage in coverage over
ground-based products, satellite products often have lower quality compared with
ground-based measurements. However, with the fast development of
spaceborne instruments, including improved quality of onboard
instruments and increased temporal and spatial coverage (CEOS, 2017; Dubovik
et al., 2021), as well as with improved access to satellite
products (Borowitz, 2018) following open-access policy (Harris and Bauman,
2015; Olbrich, 2018) and standardisation of satellite data (Loew et al.,
2017), the contribution of the spaceborne measurements to climate studies
is gradually increasing.</p>
      <p id="d1e364">Calibration and validation (cal/val) are essential to characterise the
quality of the performance of a mission
(<uri>https://earth.esa.int/eogateway/documents/20142/1564943/Sentinel-3-Calibration-and-Validation-Plan.pdf</uri>,
last access: 14 February 2022). Calibration tasks include pre-launch and
in-flight calibrations and characterisation, as well as comprehensive
verification of Level-1 data processors. For optical missions, radiometric,
spectral, and geometric stability are subjects for investigation.</p>
      <p id="d1e370">Validation is a part of a cal/val activity. In the context of remote
sensing, validation refers to the process of quantifying the accuracy of
satellite-retrieved products by assessing the uncertainty of the derived
products by analytical comparison to reference data, which is presumed to
represent the true value of an attribute. Validation shows the maturity of
the satellite-derived product and thus provides a conclusion on the
mission success. Besides providing information about the product quality,
validation may reveal a degradation of the instrument or potential drift
(Julien and Sobrino, 2021). Validation results should be used in quality
assurance reporting together with product details, calibration
characterisation, retrieval algorithm description, and uncertainty
characterisation.</p>
      <p id="d1e374">Validation is a comparison against in situ measurements, both systematic and from
campaigns, and intercomparison against other satellite data sources and/or
models. Validation requires reference data with high reliability. Since the
performance of a retrieval algorithm may vary in different conditions,
validation also requires well-sampled coverage of useful ranges of measured
values. Possible uncertainties of the product used as the “truth” must be
considered. Since other satellite products and models may have their own
biases, the intercomparison against models and other satellite products is
called evaluation.</p>
      <p id="d1e377">Changes in sensors and algorithms may be revealed if similar validation
approaches are employed for different versions of products. Thus, common
validation principles and approaches should be followed to allow the
intercomparison. General validation is product-specific, while detailed
validation is instrument-specific. Validation requires  expertise on
instrument, processing, and application, as well as a good understanding of
limitations; thus, general validation approaches have to be adapted
considering specifications of particular products (e.g. temporal, spatial,
radiometric resolutions).</p>
      <p id="d1e380">An independent verification processing system is important. The purpose of
validation is not only to show how good or bad the product is; issues
explaining differences between the product and reference data should be
identified. Based on validation and evaluation results, recommendations on
the product improvements can be provided to the product developers.
Recommendations are important as they will help to identify conditions in which
an algorithm performance should be improved. Iterations on the product
validation results with product developers, such as the round robin approach
(Holzer-Popp et al., 2013), are a good example of how communication between the
validation team and product developers should be organised to better utilise
validation results for improvement of product quality.</p>
      <p id="d1e383">In this paper we introduce global validation and evaluation results for the
SYNERGY (SNY) aerosol optical depth (AOD) product, SY_2_AOD (North and Heckel, 2019), for the period from 14 January 2020 to 30 September 2021. The SY_2_AOD product is retrieved from spatially and temporally collocated data
measured with two instruments: the Sea and Land Surface Temperature Radiometer
(SLSTR) and the Ocean and Land Color Instrument (OLCI) aboard Sentinel-3 (S3A
and S3B) satellites. The SYNERGY retrieval algorithm was originally
developed for the retrieval of AOD from the Advanced Along-Track scanning
Radiometer (AATSR) and MEdium-spectral Resolution Imaging Spectrometer
(MERIS) (North et al., 2008) and further developed for the S3 instruments.
The SY_2_AOD product is available from both
S3A and S3B satellites. Extensive and systematic AOD validation against
ground-based measurements and intercomparison with the Moderate Resolution
Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) AOD product were performed in the framework of
the European Space Agency (ESA) Copernicus Space Component Validation
for Land Surface Temperature, Aerosol Optical Depth and Water Vapour
Sentinel-3 Products (LAW, <uri>https://law.acri-st.fr/home</uri>, last access: 10 January 2022).</p>
      <p id="d1e389">The paper is structured as follows. The SY_2 retrieval
algorithm and SY_2_AOD product are introduced
in Sect. 2. In Sect. 3 we introduce a validation approach applied in the
current study. An algorithm developed for extracting satellite and
ground-based measurement matchups is explained in Sect. 4. Reference
validation products are introduced in Sect. 5​​​​​​​. AOD, AOD uncertainties, fine-mode AOD (FMAOD), fine-mode fraction (FMF), and Angström exponent (AE)
validation results with AERONET are shown in Sect. 6. AOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> validation
results with SURFRAD and SKYNET are shown in the Supplement (Sects. S1 and
S2, respectively). Validation results over ocean are presented in Sect. 7.
Intercomparison of daily, monthly, seasonal, and annual SY-2 AOD and MODIS
AOD products is shown in Sect. 8. Validation results are summarised in Sect. 9.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><?xmltex \opttitle{SY\_2 AOD product}?><title>SY_2 AOD product</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Instrument description</title>
      <p id="d1e417">OLCI and SLSTR L1b top-of-the-atmosphere (TOA) radiances were utilised in
the SYNERGY algorithm for the retrieval of aerosol properties.</p>
      <p id="d1e420">The Sentinel-3 OLCI
(<uri>https://sentinels.copernicus.eu/web/sentinel/technical-guides/sentinel-3-olci/olci-instrument</uri>,
last access: 16 March 2022) is a push-broom imaging spectrometer with a swath
width of 1270 km. It provides spatial sampling at 300 m with five cameras in 21 bands in the spectrum range of 0.4–1.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m.</p>
      <p id="d1e434">The SLSTR instrument
(<uri>https://sentinels.copernicus.eu/web/sentinel/technical-guides/sentinel-3-slstr/instrument</uri>,
last access: 16 March 2022) is a conical scanning imaging radiometer
employing the along-track scanning dual-view technique. With the dual-view
scan (at near nadir and 55<inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> oblique), measurements are taken at
nine bands in the range of 0.55–12 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m covering the visible, shortwave
infrared, and thermal infrared areas of the spectrum. The SLSTR spatial
resolution is 500 m at nadir for visible and shortwave infrared bands and
1km at thermal infrared.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Algorithm description</title>
      <p id="d1e465">The aim of the SYNERGY aerosol algorithm is to provide global aerosol
optical depth and related aerosol properties for all cloud and ice-free
regions of the Sentinel-3 combined OLCI–SLSTR swaths. The SLSTR
retrieval (ESA climate office, 2022, <uri>https://climate.esa.int/en/projects/aerosol/key-documents/</uri>, Algorithm
Theoretical Basis Document, last access: 25 February 2022) is of variable
quality, with higher uncertainty in retrievals in the oblique backscattering
direction. The motivation of combining the SLSTR with OLCI is to improve the
SLSTR retrieval using additional spectral information from OLCI. The
algorithm was originally derived from the aerosol retrieval algorithm
developed by Swansea University under the ESA Aerosol CCI programme for the
(A)ATSR and SLSTR instruments (North, 2002; Bevan et al., 2012; Popp et al.,
2016) but with further development to exploit the increased spectral
sampling available from the OLCI. This allows a more
robust retrieval but also provides aerosol estimates over the full
Sentinel-3 swath, whereas for the original algorithms using only SLSTR
imagery, retrieval over land is only attempted for the regions where both
nadir and oblique views are available. The key features of the algorithm are
given here and are summarised in detail in the SYN AOD Algorithm Theoretical
Basis Document (North and Heckel, 2019).</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS1">
  <label>2.2.1</label><title>Pre-processing</title>
      <p id="d1e478">The algorithm uses the L1c co-registered OLCI and SLSTR data product as
input, projected on the OLCI grid. Co-registration is made based on the
common 865 nm radiometric band. Over selected ground-control points,
radiometric images of the SLSTR 865 nm band are extracted and compared to the
OLCI 865 nm acquisitions. The OLCI image is moved around according to shift
vectors and the cross-correlation with the fixed SLSTR window is calculated.
The elements of the shift vectors at which a maximum in cross-correlation is
reached determine the pixel deregistration between the OLCI and SLSTR reference
channel.</p>
      <p id="d1e481">Over ocean, AOD is returned using the full swath of the Level 1c (L1c)
product (1400 km), while over land the region covered by both nadir and
oblique view (750 km) is used for the best-quality retrieval, and aerosol
retrieval is also made outside this region where both nadir-only SLSTR
and OLCI are available (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1200 km). Beginning with the L1c
product, pixels are flagged to screen cloud, snow ice, or sunglint areas. In
addition, all neighbouring pixels to cloud pixels are flagged to avoid edge
effects. Pixels are grouped into “super-pixels” formed by blocks of 15 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 15 pixels of the L1c SYN pixels at 300 m spatial resolution. Thus, a
super-pixel represents a resolution of about 4.5 km <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4.5 km. The result is a super-pixel giving aggregated cloud-free TOA radiance for the nadir and oblique view (if present) of the same surface location. The inversion is
carried out for all land and ocean super-pixels which are at least 50 %
free of cloud, ice, and snow. Over-ocean retrieval proceeds if either nadir
or oblique super-pixels are valid, while over land both nadir and oblique
must be valid for dual-view retrieval or nadir only for single-view
(spectral) retrieval.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS2">
  <label>2.2.2</label><title>Inversion to derive aerosol parameters</title>
      <p id="d1e514">The basis of the algorithm is iterative non-linear optimisation to jointly
retrieve aerosol optical depth at a reference wavelength of 550 nm, referred
to as AOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, and the fine-mode fraction (FMF) of AOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. Atmospheric
radiative transfer is approximated as a look-up table (LUT) to relate top-of-atmosphere to surface reflectance for a given estimate of aerosol
parameters, water vapour, ozone, and surface pressure. Over both land and
ocean, the retrieval requires optimisation of a cost function expressing the fit
of derived surface reflectance to ocean or land models of reflectance.
Several additional parameters are provided, which are derived from these properties,
to provide information on spectral variation of AOD and surface reflectance
values intended as diagnostics (see Sect. 2.3 for details). When a single
viewing direction is used, the inversion is made over spectral bands in that
direction only. This is normally the case outside the oblique view swath for which nadir only is used, but use of the oblique view alone also occurs over
ocean where the nadir view is obscured by glint or cloud. Over ocean, only
SLSTR channels (five spectral bands corresponding to S1 – 554 nm, S2 – 659 nm, S3 – 865 nm, S5 – 1613 nm, and S6 – 2255 nm) are taken into account in
the aerosol retrieval. Over land, both sensors (including OLCI 442.5 nm
spectral band) are considered.</p>
      <p id="d1e535">A climatology of aerosol composition (Kinne et al., 2013; de Leeuw et al.,
2015) is used to provide further information on the fine and coarse
components (non-spherical vs. spherical, single-scattering albedo) and a
prior estimate of the fine-mode fraction. We fit parameters for both AOD and
FMF, which controls the spectral variation of AOD. Although AOD is
parameterised by a single nominal wavelength (550 nm), all wavelengths of
SLSTR, and additionally the 442.5 nm OLCI channel over land, are used in this
fitting. The single-scattering albedo (SSA) is constrained by climatology for the coarse- and fine-mode
extremes separately and as a priori information. The retrieval of FMF
results in SSA by interpolation between these extremes; however, this
should be seen as a potential diagnostic for retrieval performance rather
than a user product. Further constraints prevent unfeasible retrieval (e.g.
negative AOD or surface reflectance). An estimate of the 1 standard
deviation (SD) error in AOD at 550 nm is derived from the second derivative
(curvature) of the error surface near the optimal value.</p>
      <p id="d1e538">Over ocean, a surface reflectance model gives a reflectance estimate
determined from the wind speed and direction and using the models of Cox and
Munk (1954) for glint, Monahan and O'Muircheartaigh (1980) and Koepke (1984)
for foam fraction and spectral reflectance, and Morel's case I water
reflectance model dependent on pigment concentration (Morel, 1988). The
ocean inversion uses bands from SLSTR only, using both views to invert if
both are available or a single view (either nadir or oblique) if one
view is either obscured by cloud, contaminated by glint, or in a
swath region where only a single view is present. For land, the reflectance
constraint is the result of fitting to separate angular and spectral
parameterised models (North, 2002; North et al., 2008; Davies and North,
2015; North and Heckel, 2019). When the oblique SLSTR view is not
available, only the spectral constraint is used, allowing AOD estimation
over the full L1c swath over both land and ocean.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS3">
  <label>2.2.3</label><title>Post-processing</title>
      <p id="d1e549">A final step is used to filter residual cloud contamination or other sources
of poor retrieval. This is based on thresholding of local image standard
deviation, as discussed in Sogacheva et al. (2017). Over ocean, a final
screening is also made on the quality of model fit. Any AOD value outside
the AOD valid range of [0, 4] is replaced by a “fill” value of 6.53.
A “clean-air” test is performed to recognise cases when an extensive rejection
of low AOD values occurs in the case of a clean atmosphere, which often happens
over dark surfaces. In the case that this test is positive, which is indicated by
quality flags, a value of 0.04 is used.</p>
      <p id="d1e552">During post-processing, further aerosol outputs are derived from the
retrieved AOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and FM AOD. This includes spectral variation of AOD,
which is given using a pre-computed look-up table from the retrieved FM AOD
and aerosol mixture. The Angström exponent is computed based on a pair
of spectral AOD values. Here we choose 865 and 550 nm. A full set of
quality flags is provided.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><?xmltex \opttitle{SY\_2 AOD product description}?><title>SY_2 AOD product description</title>
      <p id="d1e574">Derived aerosol outputs include AOD, AOD uncertainty and single-scattering
albedo (each at 440, 550, 670, 865, 1610 nm), aerosol absorption
optical depth, fine-mode AOD, dust AOD (each at 550 nm), and the Angström
exponent (between 550 and 865 nm). The full list of derived aerosol
outputs, which are recorded in gridded NetCDF format at 4.5 km resolution, is
shown in Table S1. Additionally for each super-pixel, information is
provided giving time and location, solar–view geometry, cloud fraction, AOD
retrieval quality flags, and retrieved surface reflectance for each
waveband. Quality flags indicate which retrieval method was used, for
example nadir-only or dual-view, land–ocean algorithm, and further indicators
such as retrieval failure through negative AOD estimation or glint
contamination.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Validation approach</title>
      <p id="d1e586">The validation approach suggested for the European Space Agency (ESA)
Climate Change Initiative (CCI) AOD product validation (ESA climate office, 2022, <uri>https://climate.esa.int/en/projects/aerosol/key-documents/</uri>, last access: 25 February 2022, Product
Validation and Intercomparison Report; de
Leeuw et al., 2015) that is currently being used in ESA Aerosol CCI and Copernicus
Climate Change Service C3S_312b_Lot2 projects
was followed. A similar validation approach has been applied and further
developed in Sogacheva et al. (2018a, b, 2020) for validation of the
AATSR, MODIS, and merged AOD products. The approach includes three main
steps: (i) matchup between satellite-retrieved AOD and ground-based
measurements (Sect. 4), (ii) statistical tool
application to the set of matchups to reveal the agreement between two
products (Sect. 6), and (iii) analysis of the
statistics. Different aspects of the validation and evaluation of various
AOD products (Chu et al., 2002; Ichoku et al., 2002; Remer et al., 2005;
Levy et al., 2013; Shi et al., 2013; Sayer et al., 2012a, b, 2013, 2018,
2019) have been considered. Analysis of the provided AOD pixel-level
uncertainties was performed based on the recommendations by Sayer et al. (2020) and considering best practices from the ESA Aerosol CCI.</p>
      <p id="d1e592">Annual and seasonal validation was performed globally for all data.
Furthermore, respective validations were made over selected areas, which
represent different surface and aerosol types.</p>
      <p id="d1e595">In the NH, the SLSTR oblique scan generally samples backscattered radiance,
which has a weaker aerosol contribution than the corresponding forward-scattering sampled in the SH (e.g.
<uri>https://www-cdn.eumetsat.int/files/2021-09/SARP_Report_Option_1_final.pdf</uri>, last access: 25 February 2022). This leads to reduced quality in AOD in the NH compared with SH for the SLSTR products, which was revealed earlier
(<uri>https://climate.esa.int/media/documents/Aerosol_cci_PVIR_v1.2_final.pdf</uri>, last access: 25 February 2022). For this reason, SY_2 AOD products
from the NH and SH were validated separately.</p>
      <p id="d1e604">syAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> validation was performed for all available matchups and
separately for groups of the matchups sorted based on prevailing aerosol
types. Aerosol types were defined with AERONET AOD (aAOD) and AERONET AE
(aAE) thresholds. Although these thresholds are subjective, we consider
“background” aerosol to be cases in which aAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.2,
“fine-dominated” with aAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.2 and aAE <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1, and “coarse-dominated” with aAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.2 and aAE <inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 (e.g. Eck et al., 1999). This classification has also been used
by e.g. Sayer et al. (2018) and Sogacheva et al. (2018a, b, 2020).</p>
      <p id="d1e680">Another specification of the SY_2 AOD product is that the AOD
retrieval has been performed with different retrieval approaches, depending
on SLSTR and OLCI coverage as well as L1B data availability in different viewing
angles (for details, see Sect. 2). The dual-view
processor was applied when SLSTR measurements from both views (nadir
and oblique) were available. If measurements were available from one view
only, the single-view processor was applied to either nadir (over either
land or ocean) or oblique view (over ocean or inland waters only). This
specification of the product was considered in the current validation
exercise.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Matchup extraction</title>
      <p id="d1e691">A matchup is defined as the combination of simultaneous and spatially
collocated satellite and ground-based measurements.</p>
      <p id="d1e694">Following Ichoku et al. (2002), a macro-pixel of 11 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 11 SY_2
AOD pixels (a surface of ca. 50 km <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 km) around each station was extracted
at each overpass over a ground-based measurement station. All ground-based
measurements acquired in a time window of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>30 min around the
satellite crossing time were considered. Statistics such as number of
measurements, mean, median, minimum, maximum, and standard deviation computed
over this timeframe were included in the matchup files.</p>
      <p id="d1e718">All ground-based measurements were extracted from well-qualified networks
introduced in Sect. 5.1 (AERONET), Sect. 5.2 (MAN), and the Supplement (SURFRAD, SKYNET);
no additional quality control check has been performed for the reference
data. On the contrary, all satellite extractions included all quality flags
and contextual parameters present in the Sentinel-3 operational products.
Satellite extractions were created automatically for each station, at each
overpass, and centred on the station location. They were then associated
with relevant ground-based measurements when these data were available and
validated.</p>
      <p id="d1e721">“Empty” matchups, i.e. when the whole satellite extraction is associated
with a fill value for AOD, were not filtered out from the database, except
in the case of operational issues with the Sentinel-3 instruments. As these fill
values were mainly due to cloud contamination or aerosol retrieval failure,
they may provide information about the performance of e.g. cloud screening
in the SY_2 algorithm and were therefore relevant to
validation objective.</p>
      <p id="d1e725">Free access (upon subscription) to this matchup database has been
provided on the ESA LAW web portal (<uri>https://law.acri-st.fr/home</uri>, last access: 10 January 2022).</p>
      <p id="d1e731">To explore the performance of different processors, four separate datasets
were created and validated separately. The first dataset (called “all” in
the following) consists of all available data, regardless of which processor
was used. The second dataset (“dual”) contains data retrieved with the dual-view processor. The third (“singleN”) and fourth (“singleO”) datasets are
created using the single-view processors applied to nadir or oblique views,
respectively. The total number of matchups from dual, singleN, and singleO
groups is higher than the total number of all matchups because in the 11 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 11
pixel area around the reference ground-based measurement there could have been
pixels retrieved with different processors (e.g. dual and singleN). In that
case we have two matchups (one for the dual group and one for the single group) for
the same spatial–temporal window. If the group is not mentioned specifically
(dual, singleN, or singleO in the text and in the figure), results are shown and discussed for the group labelled all.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5">
  <label>5</label><title>Reference datasets</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS1">
  <label>5.1</label><title>AERONET</title>
      <p id="d1e758">The AERONET is a federation of ground-based remote sensing aerosol networks
(<uri>https://aeronet.gsfc.nasa.gov/</uri>, last access: 25 February 2022). For more than 25 years, AERONET has provided a long-term, continuous, and readily
accessible public domain database of aerosol optical, microphysical, and
radiative properties for aerosol research and characterisation, validation
of satellite retrievals, and synergism with other databases. An extensive
description of the AERONET sites, procedures, and data provided is available
from the AERONET website and in Holben et al. (1988) and Giles et al. (2019).</p>
      <p id="d1e764">Ground-based sun photometers directly observe the attenuation of solar
radiation without interference from land surface reflections. They provide
accurate measurements of AOD with uncertainty <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.01–0.02
(Eck et al., 1999) in the spectral range of 340–1640 nm.</p>
      <p id="d1e774">For the AOD validation, AERONET version 3 data (Giles et al., 2019) –
automated near-real-time quality control algorithm with improved cloud
screening for sun photometer aerosol optical depth (AOD) measurements – have
been utilised. Version 3 AOD data are computed for three data quality
levels: Level 1.0 (unscreened), Level 1.5 (cloud-screened and quality
controlled), and Level 2.0 (quality-assured). The Level 2.0 AOD
quality-assured dataset is now available within a month after post-field
calibration, reducing the lag time from up to several months.</p>
      <p id="d1e777">Since AERONET is a network of ground-based sun photometers, and while some
of the AERONET stations are in coastal land areas and on islands, the
open ocean is poorly covered with AERONET. Thus, another available network
(see Sect. 5.2) is used for validation of AOD
retrieved over open ocean.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS2">
  <label>5.2</label><title>MAN</title>
      <p id="d1e788">The Maritime Aerosol Network (MAN) component of AERONET provides ship-borne
AOD measurements from Microtops II sun photometers (Smirnov et al.,
2009). These data provide an alternative to observations from islands and establish validation points for satellite and aerosol transport
models. Since 2004, these instruments have been deployed periodically on
ships, providing an opportunity for monitoring aerosol properties over the
world oceans.</p>
      <p id="d1e791">The Microtops II sun photometer is a handheld device specifically designed
to measure columnar optical depth and water vapour content (Morys et al.,
2001). Direct sun measurements are acquired in five spectral channels
within the spectral range 340–1020 nm. The bandwidths of the interference
filters vary from 2–4 nm (UV channels) to 10 nm for visible and
near-infrared channels. The MAN instruments are calibrated against the same
reference instruments as utilised in AERONET. The estimated uncertainty of
the optical depth in each channel does not exceed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.02, which is
slightly higher than the uncertainty of the AERONET field (not master)
instruments as shown by Smirnov et al. (2006).</p>
      <p id="d1e801">Comparison of MAN and AERONET AOD data does not show any particular bias for
AERONET and MAN, although a visible cluster of points above the 1 : 1 line was acquired in highly variable dust outbreak conditions west of Africa in the North Atlantic (Smirnov et al., 2011).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS3">
  <label>5.3</label><title>MODIS</title>
      <p id="d1e812">The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) was launched aboard
Terra in 1999. It has a wide spectral range from 0.41 to 14.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m,
broad swath of 2330 km, and relatively fine spatial resolution of 250 m to 1 km (Levy et al., 2013). The local Equator crossing time for MODIS aboard
Terra is 10:30.</p>
      <p id="d1e823">In this study, the Level 2 combined Dark Target and Deep Blue (DT&amp;DB) AOD
product (MOD04_L2) from MODIS Terra collection C6.1 was
utilised, which is characterised by good quality and better coverage than Dark Target
or Deep Blue alone (Wei et al., 2019).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6">
  <label>6</label><title>Validation with AERONET</title>
      <p id="d1e835">The AERONET does not cover the globe evenly. The location of AERONET
stations and number of S3A collocations per AERONET station utilised in the
validation exercise are shown in Fig. 1. For S3B, the number of matchups
is similar (slightly higher).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e840">Location of the AERONET stations and number of matchups with S3A
per station (see legend) for the period 14 January 2020 to 30 September
2021.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/5289/2022/amt-15-5289-2022-f01.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e849">In the exercise it was found that the validation results for S3A and S3B
are, in general, similar (difference between results for S3A and S3B is less
than 10 % of S3A AOD). In this paper, validation results for S3A are shown in figures, while validation statistics for both S3A and S3B (shown as
S3A/S3B) are summarised in tables and discussed.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS1">
  <label>6.1</label><?xmltex \opttitle{AOD at 550\,nm}?><title>AOD at 550 nm</title>
      <p id="d1e861">AERONET does not provide AOD at 550 nm (this dataset will be referred to in the
following as aAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>). AERONET AOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (aAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) and the AERONET
Angström exponent for 440 and 870 nm (aAE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn><mml:mtext>–</mml:mtext><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">870</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>)
are used to calculate aAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> following the AOD spectral dependence
feature (a power-law relationship; Angström, 1929). However,
aAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is not measured at all AERONET stations. For those stations,
aAOD for another wavelength (400 nm or 500 nm) has been used to interpolate
aAOD to 550 nm.</p>
      <p id="d1e924">As shown in Fig. 1, AERONET stations are not
evenly distributed globally. For the study period, more than 85 % of the
matchups were from the NH. Thus, most  global results were strongly
influenced by the results obtained for the NH. In the case that validation results
are similar for the globe and the NH, results for the globe are not
visualised. In the case of a significant difference between the results for the
globe and the NH, we show figures and discuss results for both. Validation
statistics summarised in tables include results for the globe, NH, and SH.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS1.SSS1">
  <label>6.1.1</label><title>Annual results</title>
      <p id="d1e934">Scatter density plots for S3A SY_2 AOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
(syAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, or syAOD) and corresponding AERONET AOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
(aAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, or aAOD) for all matchups available for the NH and SH,
including binned AOD offsets, are shown in Fig. 2.
For most of the matchups (91 %), syAOD is small (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.4).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e982">Scatter density plots for S3A syAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and corresponding
aAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> for all, dual, singleN, and singleO groups of matchups (panels
top-down) available over the NH (left panels) and SH (right panels). The
filled magenta circles are the averaged syAOD binned in 0.1 aAOD intervals,
and the vertical lines on each circle represent the 1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> standard
deviation of the fits.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/5289/2022/amt-15-5289-2022-f02.png"/>

          </fig>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e1019">Validation statistics (number of points, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>; percentage of matchups
which fit into MODIS AOD error envelope, EE, defined as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.05 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> AOD; percentage of matchups which satisfy GCOS requirements of 0.03 or 10 % of   AOD; correlation coefficient, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>; root mean square, rms; standard
deviation, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>; bias and slope defined with linear regression applied
to all available matchups) for S3A and S3B syAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> products for the
globe, NH, and SH for the whole period for all matchups and for three groups
of matchups, defined with the processor applied (dual, singleN, singleO).</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.92}[.92]?><oasis:tgroup cols="18">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="9" colname="col9" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="10" colname="col10" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="11" colname="col11" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="12" colname="col12" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="13" colname="col13" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="14" colname="col14" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="15" colname="col15" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="16" colname="col16" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="17" colname="col17" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="18" colname="col18" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Group</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Area</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col3" nameend="col4" align="center" colsep="1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col5" nameend="col6" align="center" colsep="1">EE, % </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col7" nameend="col8" align="center" colsep="1">GCOS, % </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col9" nameend="col10" align="center" colsep="1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col11" nameend="col12" align="center" colsep="1">rms </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col13" nameend="col14" align="center" colsep="1">SD </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col15" nameend="col16" align="center" colsep="1">Bias </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col17" nameend="col18" align="center">Slope </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">S3A</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">S3B</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">S3A</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">S3B</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">S3A</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">S3B</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">S3A</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">S3B</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">S3A</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">S3B</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">S3A</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">S3B</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col15">S3A</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col16">S3B</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col17">S3A</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col18">S3B</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">all</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">globe</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">38 376</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">38 829</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">51.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">57.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">23.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">27.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.60</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.63</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.28</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">0.24</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">0.001</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">0.001</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col15">0.12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col16">0.10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col17">0.89</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col18">0.87</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">NH</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">32 856</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">33 240</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">48.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">55.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">20.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">24.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.60</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.62</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.28</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">0.25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">0.001</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">0.001</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col15">0.13</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col16">0.11</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col17">0.86</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col18">0.85</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">SH</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">5520</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">5589</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">70.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">74.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">43.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">44.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.62</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.70</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.22</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">0.15</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">0.003</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">0.002</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col15">0.04</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col16">0.04</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col17">1.19</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col18">1.06</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">dual</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">globe</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">25 098</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">25 796</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">57.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">61.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">29.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">32.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.61</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.64</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.19</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">0.18</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">0.001</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">0.001</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col15">0.11</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col16">0.09</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col17">0.62</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col18">0.65</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">NH</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">21 430</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">21 989</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">54.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">59.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">25.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">29.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.60</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.62</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">0.19</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">0.001</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">0.001</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col15">0.12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col16">0.10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col17">0.58</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col18">0.62</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">SH</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3668</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3807</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">79.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">78.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">50.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">48.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.79</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.78</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">0.12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">0.002</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">0.002</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col15">0.02</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col16">0.02</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col17">1.07</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col18">1.03</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">singleN</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">globe</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">19 986</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">19 936</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">37.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">46.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">14.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">18.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.66</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.67</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.35</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">0.30</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">0.002</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">0.002</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col15">0.14</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col16">0.12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col17">1.20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col18">1.13</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">NH</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">17 114</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">17 084</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">35.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">43.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">11.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">15.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.67</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.67</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.36</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">0.31</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">0.002</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">0.002</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col15">0.15</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col16">0.13</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col17">1.19</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col18">1.12</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">SH</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2872</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2852</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">51.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">61.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">27.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">33.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.58</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.62</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.30</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">0.19</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">0.005</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">0.003</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col15">0.09</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col16">0.07</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col17">1.31</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col18">1.11</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">singleO</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">globe</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">5235</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">5396</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">57.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">54.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">20.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">18.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.90</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.90</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.11</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">0.11</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">0.001</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">0.001</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col15">0.06</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col16">0.07</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col17">1.12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col18">1.07</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">NH</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4898</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">5027</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">56.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">52.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">18.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">16.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.90</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.90</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.11</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">0.11</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">0.001</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">0.001</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col15">0.06</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col16">0.07</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col17">1.12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col18">1.07</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">SH</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">337</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">369</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">80.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">82.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">48.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">50.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.85</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.88</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.06</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">0.06</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">0.003</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">0.002</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col15">0.05</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col16">0.03</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col17">0.83</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col18">1.07</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e1941">Validation statistics for S3A and S3B products are shown
in Table 1. These include the number of points (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>), the percentage of matchups which fit into the MODIS AOD error envelope (EE) defined as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.05 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> AOD
(Remer et al., 2013), the percentage of matchups which satisfy Global Climate
Observing System (GCOS) requirements of 0.03 or 10 % of AOD (GCOS, 2016), the
Pearson correlation coefficient (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>), root mean square (rms), standard
deviation (SD), and bias and slope defined with linear regression (polynomial
fit) applied to all available matchups.</p>
      <p id="d1e1979">A difference in the algorithm performance in the NH and SH is clear. For
S3A, the fraction of matchups in the EE (70.8 %) and the fraction of
matchups which satisfy GCOS requirements (43.0 %) are considerably
higher in the SH (in the NH, 48.2 % and 20.5 %, respectively), but <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (0.62) and rms (0.22) are only slightly better (in the NH, 0.6 and 0.28,
respectively). For all matchups, validation statistics are better for S3B:
in the SH, more matchups fit the EE (74.6 %) and GCOS (44.9 %); <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
(0.70) is higher and rms (0.15) is lower. In the NH, the difference between S3A
and S3B is smaller.</p>
      <p id="d1e1996"><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>In addition to the statistics shown in Table 1, we performed a respective
analysis for limited AOD ranges. For aAOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5, syAOD validation
statistics are slightly better than statistics for all aAOD ranges: bias is
close to 0.1, and slope is close to 1 for both S3A and S3B AOD products in the
NH. For aAOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5, bias is ca. 1.3 in the NH (where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is 127 and 125
for S3A and S3B, respectively). In the SH matchups available for the S3B product are
located close to the 1 : 1 line; however, the number of matchups with
aAOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5 is too small (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) to calculate validation statistics.</p>
      <p id="d1e2048">Group (dual, singleN, singleO) analysis reveals that most of the low-biased
syAOD outliers were retrieved with the dual processor
(Fig. 2), while most of the high-biased syAOD
outliers were retrieved with the singleN processor. Total bias is smaller
for the dual group globally and in both the NH and SH (Table 1). For aAOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5, syAOD bias is close to 0 for the dual
group; for the singleN group bias is higher than for all matchups and
increases with aAOD. Validation statistics are, in general, better in the
SH (except for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> for all the single groups). As for all matchups, validation statistics are slightly better for S3B.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e2067">For S3A, binned in 0.1 aAOD intervals, syAOD offsets (dAOD) for
the globe <bold>(a)</bold>, the NH <bold>(b)</bold>, and SH <bold>(c)</bold> for all matchups, as well as the dual, singleN, and singleO groups of matchups (yellow rhombus, red, green, and blue dots, respectively; see legend).</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/5289/2022/amt-15-5289-2022-f03.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e2086">Analysis of the binned (based on aAOD, bin size of 0.1) syAOD offsets to
aAOD was carried out. For S3A (Fig. 3), the dual
group shows better performance. In this group, the positive offset at low (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.2) AOD vanishes towards higher AOD and turns to negative at
AOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.4. About 91 % of matchups fit the AOD range of [0,
0.4]. In this AOD range, an offset is 0.03-0.05 higher in the NH compared
with the SH. Offsets for the S3B in the same AOD range are lower (up to
0.03). Offsets for singleN and singleO groups are positive in the AOD range
of [0, 1.2]. For high AOD, offsets are in general higher; however, less than
1.4 % of the matchups fit the range of aAOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e2112">Global difference <bold>(a)</bold> as well as the NH <bold>(b)</bold> and SH <bold>(c)</bold> difference (dAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) between syAOD and aAOD for aAOD
binned in 0.2 intervals: median bias (circles) and bias standard deviation
(error bars) for all and background (aAOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.2) AOD types
(purple), as well as aerosol fine-dominated AOD (blue) and coarse-dominated AOD
(green). The fraction (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) of points in each bin from the total number of
matchups is represented by orange bars. The fraction of fine-dominated
matchups in each bin is shown as the blue dashed line.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=483.69685pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/5289/2022/amt-15-5289-2022-f04.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e2154">For the aAOD binned in 0.1 intervals, the global difference (dAOD) between
syAOD and aAOD represented with the median bias and dAOD standard deviation
is shown in Fig. 4 for all aerosol types including background (aAOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.2) AOD as well as fine-dominated and coarse-dominated AOD. Globally, background AOD (64 % from all matchups) is overestimated by 0.04–0.06. Overestimation
of fine-dominated matchups increases from 0.07 to 0.15 in the AOD range
of 0.2–1.2 (34 % of matchups). Overestimation for coarse-dominated
matchups is about 0.05 for aAOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.7; for aAOD of 0.7–0.9, an
overestimation for coarse-dominated matchups is within the GCOS requirements
of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03 dAOD. For aAOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.2, dAOD  varies in sign
and amplitude; however, the number of matchups in this size range is low
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 %) and results are thus unstable. Fractions of the
fine-dominated matchups per bin are 60 %–70 % for aAOD in the range of 0.2–0.9 and more than 70 % for aAOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.9. Thus, binned offsets
for all matchups closely follow offsets for fine-dominated matchups.</p>
      <p id="d1e2200">In the NH, the syAOD offset for the background matchups is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.07; in the SH the offset is lower (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.02). Binned offsets for the
fine-dominated and coarse-dominated matchups in the NH are similar to
those for the globe. In the SH, offsets of syAOD are higher for
aAOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.4, where the number of the matchups per bin is low
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS1.SSS2">
  <label>6.1.2</label><title>Monthly and seasonal results</title>
      <p id="d1e2240">Monthly (January, February, March, etc.), seasonal (DJF, MAM, JJA, SON), and annual (year) variations of the validation results for S3A and S3B syAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> for the globe, NH, and SH are shown in Fig. 5.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e2254">Validation statistics for syAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> aggregated monthly (January,
February, and so on), seasonally (DJF, MAM, JJA, SON), and yearly (Year) shown as time series for S3A and S3B for the globe, NH, and SH.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=327.206693pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/5289/2022/amt-15-5289-2022-f05.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e2272">The correlation coefficient <inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is of sinusoidal shape for monthly statistics with two maxima for both S3A and S3B in the NH. In the SH, the correlation
coefficient varies strongly along the year. A clear peak (0.8–0.9) for both
S3A and S3B is observed in June–October. The rms in the NH is within 0.25–0.32 for both S3A and S3B, with a minimum in October–January and a maximum in March–May. In the SH,
rms for S3B is 0.15–0.2 in December–May and 0.09–0.14 in the other months.</p>
      <p id="d1e2283">Bias varies from 0.06 to 0.14 in monthly statistics in the NH. In the
SH, bias is lower; it varies from 0.01 to 0.08 in monthly statistics.
For S3B, bias is 0.01–0.35 lower than for S3A in all months, except April.</p>
      <p id="d1e2286">The fraction of matchups in the EE reflects the difference between the
NH and SH and between S3A and S3B well. EE is, in general, higher for S3B
with the offset up to 15 % in the NH.</p>
      <p id="d1e2289">As a short summary, syAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> validation results are slightly better for
S3B; the retrieval algorithm produces better results in the SH. Obtained
validation results confirm that backscatter contribution to the radiance
measured at the top of the atmosphere is less critical in the SH.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS1.SSS3">
  <label>6.1.3</label><title>Regional performance</title>
      <p id="d1e2309">There are noticeable regional differences in the performance of the
retrieval algorithm, which depend on e.g. AOD load and AOD types
(composition and optical properties), as well as on the properties of
underlying surfaces. Retrieval quality (accuracy, precision, and coverage)
varies considerably as a function of these conditions, as well as whether a
retrieval is performed over land or over ocean.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e2314">Land and ocean regions defined for this study (as in Sogacheva et
al., 2020): Europe (Eur), boreal (Bor), northern Asia (AsN), eastern Asia
(AsE), western Asia (AsW), Australia (Aus), northern Africa (AfN), southern
Africa (AfS), South America (SA), eastern North America (NAE), western North
America (NAW), Indonesia (Ind), Atlantic Ocean dust outbreak (AOd), and Atlantic Ocean biomass burning outbreak (AOb). In addition, southeastern China (ChinaSE), which is part of the AsE region marked with a blue frame, is
considered separately. Land, ocean, and global AOD was also considered.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/5289/2022/amt-15-5289-2022-f06.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e2323">Following Sogacheva et al. (2020), we intercompare validation results over
15 regions (as defined in Fig. 6) that seem likely to
represent a sufficient variety of aerosol and surface conditions. These and include 11 land regions, two ocean regions, and one heavily
mixed region. The land regions represent Europe (denoted by Eur), boreal
(Bor), northern, eastern, and western Asia (AsN, AsE, and AsW, respectively),
Australia (Aus), northern and southern Africa (AfN and AfS), South America
(SA), and eastern and western North America (NAE and NAW). Southeastern
China (ChinaSE), which is part of the AsE, is considered separately. The
Atlantic Ocean is represented as two ocean regions, one characterised by
Saharan dust outflow over the central Atlantic (AOd) and a second that
includes burning outflow over the southern Atlantic (AOb). The mixed region
over Indonesia (Ind) includes both land and ocean. For exact locations, see
Table S2 in the Supplement.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e2329">For S3A, syAOD and aAOD scatter density plots for selected regions
(as defined in Fig. 6).</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=469.470472pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/5289/2022/amt-15-5289-2022-f07.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e2338">High diversity in the validation results was observed between the selected
regions (Fig. 7; Table S2 in the Supplement).
The highest correlation (0.94) was found in AOb region (the number of matchups
is low in this region at 22). For ChinaSE, AsN, AsE, AOd, Aus, and NAE, the
correlation coefficient <inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> was in the range 0.6–0.8, which was higher than
that for the globe. For Eur and Ind, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.4. For the above-mentioned
regions, bias between binned syAOD and aAOD does not change much. Bias is
positive in Asia, Bor, and SA regions for aAOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mo>≲</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.2;
bias calculated with linear regression was higher for those regions. The
number of syAOD outliers, defined as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mo>|</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>syAOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> ​​​​​​​aAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mo>|</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5, varied among the regions. In Eur, positive syAOD outliers
were observed for aAOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.3. For Asian and Bor regions, syAOD
outliers were observed mostly for aAOD in the range of [0.2, 1.2]. More
negative syAOD outliers were observed in the NAW region.</p>
      <p id="d1e2405">Among the land regions, the fraction of the pixels in EE was highest in Aus
(81.6 %) and lowest in Bor and SA (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 30 %); for other land regions the
fraction of the pixels in EE was in the 30 %–60 % interval. Over ocean, in AOb and AOd areas, the fraction of the pixels in EE was high (67.8 % and
95.5 %, respectively).</p>
      <p id="d1e2415">The fraction of syAOD pixels which satisfy GCOS requirements was low
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 31 %) for all regions, except for Aus (54.5 %) and AOb
(68.2 %), where matchups cover low-AOD (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.3) conditions only.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e2434">Regional (for Eur, ChinaSE, AfN, AfS, Ind, AOd, SA, NAE)
difference (dAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) between syAOD and aAOD for aAOD binned in 0.1
intervals: median bias (circles) and bias standard deviation (error bars)
for all and background (aAOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.2) AOD types (purple), as well as aerosol
fine-dominated AOD (blue) and coarse-dominated AOD (green). The fraction (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) of points in each bin from the total number of matchups is represented by orange bars. The fraction of fine-dominated matchups in each bin is shown as a blue dashed line. Results for other regions are in the Supplement (Fig. S7).</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=327.206693pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/5289/2022/amt-15-5289-2022-f08.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e2467">Regional differences between syAOD and aAOD for all aerosol types including
background (aAOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.2) AOD as well as fine-dominated and coarse-dominated AOD
for selected aAOD bins are shown in Fig. 8. For
most of the regions, a general tendency towards positive SY_2
AOD offsets is observed under the background conditions. Offsets are higher
(up to 0.15) in Ind and SA and lower (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.04) in AfN, AfS, and AOd.
The behaviour of the fine-dominated offset is similar for most of the regions
(ChinaSE, AfN, AfS, Ind) with a gradual increase in the aAOD range of ca. 0.7–1.1. The coarse-dominated offset over Eur is underestimated by up to 0.18
for aAOD of 0.6–0.8. Over China, the coarse-dominated offset is slightly
overestimated at aAOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.7 and underestimated at aAOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.
Over bright surface with a contribution of dust aerosols (AfN), all groups
show good agreement with aAOD for aAOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.7. For aAOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.7, syAOD for coarse-contaminated matchups is considerably underestimated.
Similar offsets are observed in the NAE region, where 70 %–90 % of matchups are
characterised by fine-dominated aerosols. In the possible biomass burning
region (AfS), an underestimation of syAOD for coarse-dominated matchups
gradually increases for aAOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.3, reaching <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.9 at aAOD close to
1. Over Ind, dAOD is positive for aAOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5. Over ocean, with
possible contamination of Saharan dust (AOd), offsets are constantly
positive (up to 0.1) for all groups at aAOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS1.SSS4">
  <label>6.1.4</label><title>Analysis of syAOD relative offsets</title>
      <p id="d1e2549">The syAOD offset analysis was performed for matchups which did not satisfy the
GCOS requirements of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mo>|</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>syAOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> aAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mo>|</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03 or <inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mo>|</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>syAOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> aAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mo>|</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> aAOD (GCOS, 2016).</p>
      <p id="d1e2616">The syAOD relative offset, or dAOD,rel, was defined as in Eq. (1).
              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M138" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>dAODrel</mml:mtext><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>syAOD</mml:mtext><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mtext>aAOD</mml:mtext></mml:mrow><mml:mtext>aAOD</mml:mtext></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS1.SSSx1" specific-use="unnumbered">
  <title>Latitude dependence of the syAOD relative offset</title>
      <p id="d1e2645">In Fig. 9 we show a density scatter plot for the
latitude dependence of the relative offset of the syAOD for all, dual,
singleN, and singleO groups of pixels for S3A. Colour indicates the fraction
of the points with corresponding dAOD,rel from the total number of points
within the 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> latitude bin. As an example, for the latitude
20–30<inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, dAOD,rel was between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.5 and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1 for
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 38 % of matchups. The magenta line shows the number of
matchups in the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-axis bin.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{9}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 9</label><caption><p id="d1e2697">For S3A, density scatter plot for the latitude (in degrees) dependence
of the syAOD relative offset for all <bold>(a)</bold>, dual <bold>(b)</bold>, and singleN <bold>(c)</bold> groups of pixels. Colour indicates
the fraction of the points with a corresponding dAOD,rel interval from the
total number of points within the latitude bin. The magenta line shows the total
number of matchups in the corresponding latitude bin.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/5289/2022/amt-15-5289-2022-f09.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e2715"><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>In the NH, dAODrel was mostly positive (syAOD was higher than aAOD). In the
SH, dAOD,rel is mostly positive at 30–60<inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S and
mostly negative at 10–30<inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, except for the singleN
group, for which dAOD,rel is mostly positive. In both NH and SH, dAOD,rel
increases towards the poles. This increase is more pronounced for the
singleO group of pixels but also visible in the dual group.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS1.SSSx2" specific-use="unnumbered">
  <title>Dependence of syAOD relative offset on surface reflectance</title>
      <p id="d1e2743">The directional surface reflectance (SR) retrieved with the SYNERGY
algorithm is provided in the SY_2_AOD product.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{10}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 10</label><caption><p id="d1e2748">For S3A syAOD matchups with AERONET which do not satisfy GCOS
requirements, scatter density plot for the dependence of the syAOD relative
offset of retrieved surface reflectance for all <bold>(a)</bold>, dual <bold>(b)</bold>, and singleN <bold>(c)</bold> groups of pixels. Colour
indicates the fraction of the points with a corresponding dAOD,rel interval
from the total number of points within the surface reflectance bin. The magenta
line shows the total number of matchups in the corresponding surface
reflectance bin.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/5289/2022/amt-15-5289-2022-f10.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e2766">In Fig. 10 we show a density scatter plot for the
dependence of the relative offset of the AOD on the retrieved SR for the
dual, singleN, and singleO groups of matchups. Colour indicates the fraction
of the points with corresponding dAOD,rel from the total number of points
within the surface reflectance bin.</p>
      <p id="d1e2769">For all matchups (not shown here), as well as for the dual group (globally,
as well as over the NH and SH), footprints for the dAODrel dependence on the
SR are similar. For SR <inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.05 and SR <inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.35, dAOD,rel
indicates that syAOD is mostly overestimated. In specified ranges, dAOD,rel
increases towards outer edges. For the SR in the range of 0.05–0.35,
syAOD is mostly underestimated. Underestimation is more pronounced when
syAOD is retrieved with the dual processor. For the singleO group, syAOD is
mostly overestimated in all SR ranges.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS1.SSSx3" specific-use="unnumbered">
  <title>Dependence of the AOD relative offset on solar and satellite geometry</title>
      <p id="d1e2792">In Fig. 11 we show the
dependence of the syAOD relative offsets on the OLCI geometry (relative
azimuth (Raz), satellite zenith angle (SatZA), and sun (or solar) zenith
angle (SunZA) provided in the SY_2_AOD
product (North and Heckel, 2019) for the NH and SH. Colour indicates the
fraction of the points with a corresponding dAOD,rel interval in the Raz,
SatZA, or SunZA bins.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F11"><?xmltex \currentcnt{11}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 11</label><caption><p id="d1e2797">For S3A syAOD matchups with AERONET which do not satisfy GCOS
requirements, the dependence of the AOD relative offsets on relative azimuth <bold>(a, b)</bold>, satellite zenith angle <bold>(c, d)</bold>, and sun zenith angle <bold>(e, f)</bold> for the NH <bold>(a, c, e)</bold> and SH <bold>(b, d, f)</bold> for all pixels.
Colour indicates the fraction of the points with corresponding dAOD,rel from
the total number of points within the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-axis bin. The magenta line shows the
total number of matchups in the corresponding <inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-axis bin.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/5289/2022/amt-15-5289-2022-f11.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e2836">In the NH, positive dAOD,rel increases with  Raz increasing from  50 to 80<inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and decreases with Raz increasing from 100 to 140<inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.
In the SH, we see
a similar dependence of dAOD,rel for Raz at 50–80<inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. For Raz <inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 90<inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, positive dAOD,rel increases with a
Raz increase from 150 to 180<inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>; a negative dAOD,rel of
[<inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.5] is observed more often than positive [0, 0.5] dAOD,rel.</p>
      <p id="d1e2906">No significant dependence of dAOD,rel on the SatZA was observed. However, a
greater number of negative dAOD,rel values is clearly seen in the SH.</p>
      <p id="d1e2910">In the NH, dAODrel is slightly positive (0–0.5) in all ranges of SunZA,
except for the most extreme values. For SunZA <inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 80<inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>,
the percentage of higher positive dAOD,rel (0.5–1) increases, while for
SunZA <inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 30<inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> the percentage of higher negative dAOD,rel
rises. In the SH, a similar dependence was observed, except for SunZA in the
range of 50–65<inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, where dAOD,rel is mainly negative.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS1.SSS5">
  <label>6.1.5</label><title>Linear regression considering provided syAOD uncertainties</title>
      <p id="d1e2963">Linear fitting for combinations of syAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and aAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
collocations has been performed with a consideration of the syAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
and aAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> uncertainties
(<uri>https://se.mathworks.com/help/stats/linearmodel.predict.html</uri>, last access: 8 March 2022). For syAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, pixel-level uncertainties are provided in the SY_2_AOD product. For aAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>,
uncertainty of 0.01 has been considered (Eck et al., 1999). For both S3A and
S3B, for all groups of matchups, bias and slope for the linear regression
fits applied to the whole AOD range were improved when the syAOD and aAOD
uncertainties were considered. Bias was lowered by roughly 50 %. Slope was improved by 10 %–15 %. Improvements were smaller for the singleO group of
matchups (retrievals over ocean), for which the syAOD uncertainties are
smallest (Sect. 6.2).</p>
      <p id="d1e3024"><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>For more details, see Fig. S8 and Table S3, which are both in the Supplement.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS1.SSS6">
  <label>6.1.6</label><?xmltex \opttitle{AOD at wavelengths other than 550\,nm}?><title>AOD at wavelengths other than 550 nm</title>
      <p id="d1e3037">Scatter plots for SY_2 AOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, AOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">670</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, AOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>,
and AOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1600</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> are shown in Fig. 12. Clear tendencies in validation statistics were
observed when comparing validation results from shorter (440 nm) to longer
(1600 nm) wavelengths. Though the correlation coefficient decreases
(0.65, 0.55, 0.50, and 0.40 for 440, 670, 865, and 1600 nm, respectively), the offset
(0.15, 0.1, 0.07, 0.05) and rms (0.33, 0.23, 0.18, 0.16) also decrease.
Note that AOD decreases significantly (except for dust aerosols) as
wavelength increases.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F12"><?xmltex \currentcnt{12}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 12</label><caption><p id="d1e3078">Scatter plots for SY_2 AOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, AOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">670</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>,
AOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">870</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, and AOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1600</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (panels top down) for the NH and SH (left and
right panels, respectively).</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/5289/2022/amt-15-5289-2022-f12.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e3123">Validation statistics for all wavelengths are slightly worse for the NH than
global validation statistics (Table S4, Supplement); validation statistics
for the SH are considerably better than for the NH (except for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> for 1600 nm wavelength).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F13" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{13}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 13</label><caption><p id="d1e3136">For​​​​​​​ the NH (left) and SH (right) for different
wavelengths (top down: 440, 670, 865, 1600 nm), the difference
(dAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) between syAOD and aAOD for selected aAOD
bins: median bias (circles) and bias standard deviation (error bars) for all
(incl. background, aAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.2) AOD
types (purple), as well as aerosol fine-dominated AOD (blue) and coarse-dominated
(green) AOD. The fraction (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) of fine-dominated matchups from the total
number of matchups in each bin is represented by orange bars. The fractions
of fine- and coarse-dominated matchups in each bin are shown as blue and
green dashed lines, respectively.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=327.206693pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/5289/2022/amt-15-5289-2022-f13.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e3177">The syAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is overestimated for all aerosol types (Fig. 13). The syAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">670</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
for fine-dominated matchups is in good agreement with aAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">670</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> for
aAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">670</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1. A similar tendency, though for narrower aAOD ranges
(aAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">870</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5 and aAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1600</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.3), is observed for
syAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and syAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1600</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. For all wavelengths, coarse-dominated
syAOD is retrieved accurately for aAOD below ca. 0.4; above 0.4 syAOD is
underestimated, and the offset between syAOD and aAOD increases with
increasing aAOD.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS2">
  <label>6.2</label><title>AOD uncertainties</title>
      <p id="d1e3283">The concept for validation of the AOD uncertainties applied in the current
study follows the validation strategy suggested by Sayer et al. (2013, 2020)
with consideration of the validation practice further developed in the ESA
Aerosol_cci+ project (Product Validation and Intercomparison Report,
<uri>https://climate.esa.int/media/documents/Aerosol_cci_PVIR_v1.2_final.pdf</uri>, last access: 25 February 2022).</p>
      <p id="d1e3289">Definitions for uncertainties in the current evaluation of uncertainties are
as follows.
<list list-type="bullet"><list-item>
      <p id="d1e3294">Prognostic (per-retrieval) uncertainties (PUs)  for the AOD product are provided at 440, 550, 670, 865, 1600, and 2250 nm wavelengths.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e3298">Expected discrepancy (ED) is an uncertainty variable which accounts for the PU and the accuracy of the ground-based (AERONET) data (AU), as defined by Sayer et al. (2020) in Eq. (2):<disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><label>2</label><mml:math id="M194" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ED</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PU</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">AU</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>According to Giles et al. (2019), AU <inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.01.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e3333">AOD error (AODerror) is the difference between a satellite product AOD (syAOD)
and AERONET AOD (aAOD); AOD absolute error (absAODerror) is an absolute
value for AOD error.</p></list-item></list></p>
      <p id="d1e3336">Mean bias correction has been performed for the error distributions in some
of the subsequent analysis, since the concept of standard uncertainties
requires bias-free error distributions which can be interpreted as an absence
of remaining systematic and quantifiable biases
(<uri>https://climate.esa.int/media/documents/Aerosol_cci_PVIR_v1.2_final.pdf</uri>, last access: 25 February 2022).</p>
      <p id="d1e3342"><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>If wavelength is not specifically mentioned, all variables in Sect. 6.2
refer to the wavelength of 550 nm.</p>
      <p id="d1e3347">Analysis of the distribution of the uncertainties has been performed for the
whole S3A and S3B SY_2_AOD product, as well as
for groups of pixels retrieved with different retrieval approaches (dual,
singleN, singleO). Results for S3A and S3B are similar; only results for S3A
are shown and discussed.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS2.SSS1">
  <label>6.2.1</label><?xmltex \opttitle{$\chi 2$ test for evaluation of the prognostic uncertainties}?><title><inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">χ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> test for evaluation of the prognostic uncertainties</title>
      <p id="d1e3367">The goodness of the predicted uncertainties was estimated with the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">χ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
test, as in Eq. (3)
              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><label>3</label><mml:math id="M198" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">χ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:munderover><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            with individual weighted deviation <inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>  described in
Eq. (4).
              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E4" content-type="numbered"><label>4</label><mml:math id="M200" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mtext>syAOD</mml:mtext><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mtext>aAOD</mml:mtext><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mtext>mean</mml:mtext><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mtext>syAOD</mml:mtext><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mtext>aAOD</mml:mtext><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mtext>PU</mml:mtext><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mtext>AU</mml:mtext><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            If <inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">χ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1, prognostic uncertainties describe the
AOD error well. If <inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">χ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:mo>≫</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1, PUs are strongly
underestimated; if <inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">χ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mo>≪</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1, PUs are strongly
overestimated. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">χ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was calculated for the whole dataset and for
different AOD bins to reveal if the goodness of the PU uncertainties is AOD-dependent.</p>
      <p id="d1e3566">For the whole dataset, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">χ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 3.1, which means that PUs are slightly
underestimated. For the binned AOD, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">χ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>  varies strongly
(Fig. 14). For aAOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.4, which is ca. 90 % of all values, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">χ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> fits into the interval [1.8, 3.2]. Thus, for
most of the matchups, PU is only slightly underestimated. For
AOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.4 PU underestimation is more pronounced.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F14"><?xmltex \currentcnt{14}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 14</label><caption><p id="d1e3623"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">χ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for binned aAOD for all available matchups (magenta
line) and after the outliers of the individual weighted deviations
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10) are removed (red line).
Density scatter plot for PU and syAOD.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=170.716535pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/5289/2022/amt-15-5289-2022-f14.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e3663">No significant dependence of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> on AOD error or surface
reflectance provided in the SY_2_AOD product
has been revealed (Fig. S9, Supplement).</p>
      <p id="d1e3680">Though the number of  matchups in the whole dataset is high (which
provides confidence in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">χ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> test results), it was noticed that high
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (up to 155) exists, which may bias the evaluation of
the PU with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">χ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. To remove possible contribution of the
outliers to the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M221" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">χ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> test results, cases with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(which make up less than 5 % of the total number of matchups) were removed
from the analysis.</p>
      <p id="d1e3745">For the dataset with the removed outliers, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">χ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.2, which means that PUs describe the AOD error well.</p>
      <p id="d1e3765">The influence of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> outliers is more pronounced for AOD bins, in which number of matchups per bin is lower and thus the contribution of the outliers to the results is more expected. If <inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
outliers are removed from the binned analysis, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">χ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> fits the range [1,
1.45] for AOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M228" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.4 (Fig. 14).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS2.SSS2">
  <label>6.2.2</label><title>Evaluation of prognostic uncertainties with absolute AOD error</title>
      <p id="d1e3821">To qualitatively illustrate the accuracy of prognostic uncertainties, we show
in Fig. 15 the comparison between the PU, AOD
error distribution, and theoretical Gaussian distribution (with a mean of 0
and standard deviation of the syAODerror). PU distribution shows a double
peak (the first peak is at ca. 0.02–0.04 for all groups; the second peak is in a
range of 0.12–0.18 for different groups). For singleN, two peaks are
located close to each other. Mean PU for the dual group is higher; SD is higher
for the singleN group. AOD error distributions are Gauss-like with some
asymmetry in the positive AOD error direction.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F15" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{15}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 15</label><caption><p id="d1e3826">Comparison between PU, AOD error distribution, and theoretical
Gaussian distribution for the whole product <bold>(a)</bold> as well as dual <bold>(b)</bold> and singleN <bold>(c)</bold> groups of matchups.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/5289/2022/amt-15-5289-2022-f15.png"/>

          </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS2.SSS3">
  <label>6.2.3</label><title>Evaluation of expected discrepancy and absolute AOD error</title>
      <p id="d1e3852">ED is calculated for each pixel by combining PU and AERONET uncertainties,
as in Eq. (2).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F16" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{16}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 16</label><caption><p id="d1e3857">Histograms of the ED (blue filled bars), AOD errors (red; with
bias correction: green), and ED calculated from uncertainties (purple; scaled
to best fit the mean-bias-corrected error distribution) for all matchups <bold>(a)</bold> as well as dual <bold>(b)</bold> and singleN <bold>(c)</bold> groups of
matchups. The statistics of mean, mean,abs, and SD are means over “real” values, means
over “absolute” values, and standard deviation, respectively, for histograms
of the corresponding colour.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/5289/2022/amt-15-5289-2022-f16.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e3875">For a quantitative validation, we follow (with some modifications) a new
approach developed by ESA Aerosol CCI
(<uri>https://climate.esa.int/media/documents/Aerosol_cci_PVIR_v1.2_final.pdf</uri>, last access: 25 February 2022). A synthetic cumulative distribution of ED is
calculated assuming a Gaussian error distribution (normalised to a total
integral of 1) with standard deviation of ED. In the next step, this
synthetic error frequency distribution is compared with the AOD error. We
calculate and subtract the mean bias from the AOD error distribution to make
it more symmetric for direct comparison to the synthetic distribution (which
by definition is always symmetric). Bias correction results for S3A all,
dual, and singleN (0.07, 0.04, and 0.12, respectively) are shown in
Fig. 16.</p>
      <p id="d1e3882">Finally, we calculate an average correction factor for the synthetic
distribution (and thus the prognostic uncertainties) in relation to the
mean-bias-corrected error distributions as the ratio of the absolute means
of both distributions. Correction factors are different for all matchups and for the
dual and singleN groups. A small correction is needed for all and singleN
(0.80 and 1.1, respectively). For the dual group, the correction is stronger
(0.67); ED should be lowered.</p>
      <p id="d1e3885">However, the correction method applied here does not equally improve ED in
all ranges. The correction factor is biased by the number of pixels with
small (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M229" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.2) absAODerror. Thus, for those cases the correction
works well; overestimated ED is lowered by 0.8 and 0.65 for the all and dual groups.
For absAODerror <inline-formula><mml:math id="M230" display="inline"><mml:mo>≳</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> ​​​​​0.3, where ED is underestimated, correction
degrades ED and increases disagreement between ED and AOD error. A possible
solution can be to perform correction separately for different
absAODerror ranges, but setting specific relations for different groups
between ED and absAODerror makes the analysis very complicated.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS2.SSS4">
  <label>6.2.4</label><title>Potential of the expected discrepancy</title>
      <p id="d1e3910">Sayer et al. (2020) suggested the analysis of the potential of the PU to
discriminate between (“good” and “bad”) pixels with likely small or large
errors. Instead of PU, we perform analysis of the ED, which, besides PU,
includes uncertainties of the ground-based measurements.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F17" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{17}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 17</label><caption><p id="d1e3915">Percentile plots of absolute AOD errors at 38 % (black), 68 % (red),
and 95 % (blue) as a function of binned expected discrepancy.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/5289/2022/amt-15-5289-2022-f17.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e3924">To estimate the potential of ED, we plot the absolute errors, which
38 % of all pixels are below, as a function of binned ED
(Fig. 17). We then repeat
this for the fractions 68 % and 95 %. These percentages relate to
0.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M231" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, 1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M232" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, and 2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M233" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M234" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is a standard
width) for normal error distributions in each bin (along the vertical axis).
Theoretically, expected values are shown as dashed lines in black, red, and
blue. The number of pixels per ED bin is shown as a grey dashed line.</p>
      <p id="d1e3956">The percentile plots show reasonable agreement (within statistical noise)
with the theoretical lines of 38 % and 68 % for the majority of the
validation points in the lower range of ED (up to 0.05–0.2) for all groups,
with underestimation of the true error at higher values of ED for the 38 % and 68 % lines. For the dual-view case, ED overestimates the true error, while for the single-view case the true error is higher than the ED prediction, especially at higher values of ED (ED <inline-formula><mml:math id="M235" display="inline"><mml:mo>≳</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.2).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS3">
  <label>6.3</label><title>Fine-mode AOD and fine-mode fraction</title>
      <p id="d1e3975">Fine-mode AOD in the SY_2 product (syFMAOD) is provided at
550nm, while AERONET fine-mode AOD (aFMAOD) is provided at 500 nm. As for
aAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M236" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">500</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (Sect. 6.1), AOD spectral dependence
(<uri>https://aeronet.gsfc.nasa.gov/new_web/man_data.html</uri>, last access: 25 February 2022; O'Neill et al., 2003) and the AERONET
AE  were considered to convert aFMAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M237" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">500</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> into aFMAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M238" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Table 2</label><caption><p id="d1e4011">For S3A and S3B, annual (for the globe, NH, and SH) and seasonal
(for the globe) validation statistics for syFMAOD.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="14">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="9" colname="col9" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="10" colname="col10" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="11" colname="col11" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="12" colname="col12" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="13" colname="col13" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="14" colname="col14" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Period</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Region</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col3" nameend="col4" align="center" colsep="1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M239" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col5" nameend="col6" align="center" colsep="1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M240" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col7" nameend="col8" align="center" colsep="1">rms </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col9" nameend="col10" align="center" colsep="1">SD </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col11" nameend="col12" align="center" colsep="1">Bias </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col13" nameend="col14" align="center">Slope </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">S3A</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">S3B</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">S3A</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">S3B</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">S3A</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">S3B</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">S3A</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">S3B</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">S3A</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">S3B</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">S3A</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">S3B</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Year</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">globe</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">18 145</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">18 262</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.63</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.67</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.22</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.001</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.001</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.13</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">0.12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">0.72</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">0.72</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">NH</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">15 883</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">15 982</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.63</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.66</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.23</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.002</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.001</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.14</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">0.12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">0.70</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">0.71</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">SH</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2262</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2280</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.67</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.72</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.15</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.15</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.003</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.002</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.06</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">0.06</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">0.93</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">0.91</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">DJF</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">globe</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2447</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2418</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.56</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.58</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.21</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.18</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.004</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.003</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">0.10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">0.59</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">0.53</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">MAM</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">5832</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">5952</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.65</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.67</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.22</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.21</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.002</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.002</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">0.11</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">0.85</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">0.86</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">JJA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">7641</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">7579</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.67</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.69</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.23</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.002</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.002</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">0.13</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">0.71</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">0.70</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">SON</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2225</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2313</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.49</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.66</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.22</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.16</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.004</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.003</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">0.10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">0.56</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">0.62</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e4463">Density scatter plots for the relation between syFMAOD and aFMAOD in the NH
and SH are shown in Fig. 18 for S3A; validation statistics are summarised in
Table 2 for both S3A and S3B. The dispersion of
points is higher in the NH. Validation results are considerably better in
the SH: <inline-formula><mml:math id="M241" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is higher (0.67 vs. 0.63 for the SH and NH, respectively), rms
(0.15 vs. 0.23) and bias (0.06 vs. 0.14) are lower, and slope (0.93 vs. 0.70) is
closer to 1. Analysis of the binned FMAOD shows that in both NH and SH, good
agreement was observed between syFMAOD and aFMAOD for aFMAOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M242" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1. At
aFMAOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M243" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1, syFMAOD is considerably underestimated in the NH. In
the SH, only a few aFMAOD values above 1 are measured. Validation statistics
for S3B are slightly better.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F18"><?xmltex \currentcnt{18}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 18</label><caption><p id="d1e4490">Density scatter plots for S3A syFMAOD and corresponding aFMAOD
for collocations available over the NH <bold>(a)</bold> and SH <bold>(b)</bold>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/5289/2022/amt-15-5289-2022-f18.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e4505">Looking at the seasonal validation results, for both S3A and S3B, the
correlation coefficient is slightly higher in MAM (0.65 and 0.67 for S3A and S3B,
respectively) and JJA (0.67 and 0.69) and lower (0.56 and 0.59) in DJF
(Table 2; Fig. S10, Supplement). Bias is ca. 0.1–0.12 and slightly higher (0.15 and 0.12) in JJA. The binned mean syFMAOD
values are close to the 1 : 1 line for aFMAOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M244" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.6–1 but fall below
the line for higher aFMAOD.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F19" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{19}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 19</label><caption><p id="d1e4517">Regional (for Eur, ChinaSE, AfN, AfS, Ind, AOd, SA, NAE)
difference (dFMAOD) between syFMAOD and aFMAOD for selected aFMAOD bins:
median bias (circles) and bias standard deviation (error bars) for all AOD
types (purple), aerosol fine-dominated AOD (blue) and coarse-dominated AOD
(green). The fraction (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M245" display="inline"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) of points in each bin from the total number of
matchups is represented by orange bars. The fraction of fine-dominated
matchups in each bin is shown as orange dashed-line. Results for other
regions are in the Supplement (Fig. S11).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=327.206693pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/5289/2022/amt-15-5289-2022-f19.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e4533"><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>Among selected regions, offset for all aerosol types is negligible (slightly
positive) in Eur, Ind, and NAW (Fig. 19). In
ChinaSE and AfN, an offset increases with increasing  aFMAOD over 0.5
and becomes more unstable (takes both positive and negative values).</p>
      <p id="d1e4537">The SY_2 fine-mode fraction (syFMF), which is a fraction of
syFMAOD from the total syAOD, was validated against the AERONET fine-mode
fraction (aFMF). Since syFMAOD is slightly overestimated, we expect that
syFMF is overestimated as well. Density scatter plots for the relation
between syFMF and aFMF in the NH and SH are shown in
Fig. 20 for S3A. In both hemispheres, and thus
globally, syFMF is overestimated in the aFMF range of 0–0.7; a positive offset
of 0.3–0.5 at low (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M246" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.25) aFMF gradually decreases. At
aFMF <inline-formula><mml:math id="M247" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.9, syFMF is slightly underestimated. Offset between syFMF
and aFMF is slightly lower in the SH. For the NH and SH, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M248" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is
0.34 and 0.42, bias is 0.56 and 0.49, and slope is 0.28 and 0.37, respectively,</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F20" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{20}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 20</label><caption><p id="d1e4564">Density scatter plots for S3A syFMF and corresponding aFM for
collocations available over the NH <bold>(a)</bold> and SH <bold>(b)</bold>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/5289/2022/amt-15-5289-2022-f20.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F21" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{21}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 21</label><caption><p id="d1e4581">Density scatter plot for the difference (dFMF) between syFMF and
aFMF as a function of aAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M249" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. Fractions of positive (dFMF <inline-formula><mml:math id="M250" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.05, red line) and negative (dFMF <inline-formula><mml:math id="M251" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M252" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.05, blue line)
overestimations per aAOD bin are shown.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/5289/2022/amt-15-5289-2022-f21.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e4620">A scatter density plot between dFMF (which is defined as the difference between
syFMF and aFMF) and aAOD is shown in Fig. 21 for
the NH and SH. In general, offset is higher at low AOD and decreases towards
high AOD. The fraction of high (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M253" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.05) overestimates
decreases towards high AOD, while the fraction of high underestimates
increases.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F22" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{22}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 22</label><caption><p id="d1e4632">Regional (for Eur, ChinaSE, AfN, AfS, Ind, AOd, SA, NAE)
difference (dFMF) between syFMF and aFMF for selected aFMF bins: median bias
(circles) and bias standard deviation (error bars) for all AOD types
(purple), as well as aerosol fine-dominated AOD (blue) and coarse-dominated AOD (green). The fraction (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M254" display="inline"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) of points in each bin from the total number of matchups is represented by orange bars. The fraction of fine-dominated
matchups in each bin is shown as an orange dashed line. Results for other
regions are in the Supplement (Fig. S12).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=327.206693pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/5289/2022/amt-15-5289-2022-f22.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e4648">Regional dFMF (Fig. 22) is positive (0.3–0.7) for
low (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M255" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.2) aFMF and decreases gradually towards higher aFMF. At
aFMF above 0.5–0.7, aFMF turns to negative (syFMF is underestimated).
A similar tendency is observed for all chosen regions.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS4">
  <label>6.4</label><?xmltex \opttitle{{\AA}ngstr\"{o}m exponent}?><title>Ångström exponent</title>
      <p id="d1e4667">The Ångström exponent, AE, is often used as a qualitative indicator
of aerosol particle size. SYNERGY AE (syAE) is calculated in the spectral
interval 550–865 nm, while AERONET AE (aAE) is provided for 500–870 nm. The difference between AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M256" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn><mml:mtext>–</mml:mtext><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M257" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">500</mml:mn><mml:mtext>–</mml:mtext><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">870</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> depends on the aerosol type and may be as high as 5 %–10 % of AE (personal estimations). This difference must be considered for the interpretation of the evaluation results.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F23" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{23}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 23</label><caption><p id="d1e4700">Scatter plots between syAE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M258" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn><mml:mtext>–</mml:mtext><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and aAE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M259" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">500</mml:mn><mml:mtext>–</mml:mtext><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">870</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> for S3A for the NH and SH (panels left and right, respectively) for different groups of products (top-down: all, dual, singleN, and singleO).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=327.206693pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/5289/2022/amt-15-5289-2022-f23.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e4737">Scatter plots between syAE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M260" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn><mml:mtext>–</mml:mtext><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and aAE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M261" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">500</mml:mn><mml:mtext>–</mml:mtext><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">870</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> for S3A for all matchups and different groups of matchups are shown in
Fig. 23, corresponding validation statistics are
shown in Table S5 in the Supplement. Two “clouds” of satellite–AERONET AE
matchups are clearly observed. The first cloud is in the aAE interval of [1,
1.6] and syAE around 1.2. In that interval, the cloud of pixels is located
around the 1 : 1 line, which means that the agreement between syAE and aAE is quite good. Dual matchups contribute most to this cloud. The second
cloud, formed mostly from the singleN and singleO groups of matchups, is
in the aAE interval of [1.4, 1.9] and syAE around 2. In that interval, syAE
is overestimated by 0.3–0.6.</p>
      <p id="d1e4769">For 40 % of the matchups with AERONET in the NH and for 60 % of the
matchups in the SH, which fit into the aAE interval of [1, 1.8], an offset
between syAE and aAE is within <inline-formula><mml:math id="M262" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.25. General overestimation of low
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M263" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5) syAE and underestimation of high (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M264" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.8) syAE
results in high (0.94 globally) overall bias.</p>
      <p id="d1e4793">For the whole global product, correlation coefficients between
syAE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M265" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn><mml:mtext>–</mml:mtext><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and aAE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M266" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">500</mml:mn><mml:mtext>–</mml:mtext><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">870</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> are quite low at 0.35 and 0.34, and rms is
high at 0.57 and 0.58 for S3A and S3B, respectively. Validation statistics are
slightly better for the dual product. The singleO product shows better
correlation but worse rms and SD. Validation statistics are better in the
NH for all matchups and the dual product. For the single-view groups
(singleN and singleO), no difference in validation results was revealed
between the NH and SH.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F24" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{24}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 24</label><caption><p id="d1e4826">Regional scatter density plots between syAE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M267" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn><mml:mtext>–</mml:mtext><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and
aAE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M268" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">500</mml:mn><mml:mtext>–</mml:mtext><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">870</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. Regions are defined in Fig. 6.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/5289/2022/amt-15-5289-2022-f24.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e4863">Regional analysis (Fig. 24, Table S6) reveals
considerable differences in syAE evaluation results for regions with
different surface type and aerosol properties. Footprints for the frequency
of matchups at certain AE ranges (density value on the scatter plot) follow
the “cloudy” shape in regional scatter density plots. The location of the
clouds along the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M269" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis (aAE) is specified by prevailing aerosol types in
those regions. The cloudy shape of the footprint often ruins validation
statistics, which should be interpreted with consideration of the matchup's
footprint; see Fig. 24.</p>
      <p id="d1e4873">The syAE is often overestimated in the aAE range [1.3, 1.7], except for AsW,
for which the fraction of good (close to the 1 : 1 line) pixels is as high as the fraction of overestimated syAOD. In AfN, low AE, which is typical for that
region characterised by a high fraction of dust particles, is often highly
overestimated. A dense cloud of good matchups is located near the 1 : 1 line in NAW. However, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M270" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (Table S6 in the Supplement) is low in that region
because, as mentioned above, the good pixels have the shape of
a cloud and statistics are defined by outliers, which are distributed evenly
in all directions from the cloud. In oceanic regions with possible
transport of dust aerosols, syAE is often underestimated. The low number of
matchups in the AOb region (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M271" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M272" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 22) does not allow making a solid conclusion on the syAE quality in this region.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S7">
  <label>7</label><title>Validation over ocean</title>
      <p id="d1e4906">Being performed aboard ships, MAN AOD measurements are irregular. S3A and
S3B collocations with MAN for the period January 2020–September 2021 are shown in Fig. 25. Altogether, 105 matchups have been found
for S3A and 95 matchups for S3B. Note that about half of the collocations
are observed near coastal zones. Since the number of validation points is
low, we show in Fig. 26 scatter plots and
validation statistics for both S3A and S3B.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F25" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{25}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 25</label><caption><p id="d1e4911">Collocations of S3A <bold>(a)</bold> and S3B <bold>(b)</bold> with MAN for
January 2020–September 2021.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/5289/2022/amt-15-5289-2022-f25.png"/>

      </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F26" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{26}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 26</label><caption><p id="d1e4928">Scatter plots between S3A and S3B syAOD as well as MAN AOD (mAOD) with
validation statistics.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/5289/2022/amt-15-5289-2022-f26.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e4938">Results for both instruments confirm a good performance of the retrieval
algorithm over ocean. For S3A and S3B, correlation coefficients are 0.88 and 0.85, and
fractions of pixels in the EE are 88.6 % and 89.5 %. An offset with MAN AOD (mAOD) is slightly higher for S3A (0.02 and 0.01), while rms is slightly higher for S3B (0.06 and 0.1).</p>
      <p id="d1e4941">One value from each product, S3A and S3B, can be considered  a clear
outlier: S3A AOD over the Baltic is underestimated, and S3B AOD over the Caribbean Sea
is overestimated. The removal of these outliers from the validation exercise
improves validation statistics: correlation increases to 0.95 and 0.97, rms
decreases to 0.04 and 0.03, and fractions of pixels in the EE increase to 89.4 % and 92.4 % for S3A and S3B, respectively.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S8">
  <label>8</label><?xmltex \opttitle{SY\_2 AOD spatial performance relative to MODIS Terra DT{\&}DB
AOD product}?><title>SY_2 AOD spatial performance relative to MODIS Terra DT&amp;DB
AOD product</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S8.SS1">
  <label>8.1</label><title>Methods</title>
      <p id="d1e4960">The coverage of ground-based reference data is limited. To better evaluate the
spatial distribution of the satellite-retrieved AOD, an intercomparison
with other satellite products is necessary. The satellite product chosen as
a “reference” must fulfil several criteria, e.g.
<list list-type="custom"><list-item><label>i.</label>
      <p id="d1e4965">overpass time as close as possible to Sentinel-3 to avoid possible
different aerosol and cloud conditions;</p></list-item><list-item><label>ii.</label>
      <p id="d1e4969">wider swath (for the reference product), which allows considering most
of the pixels from the tested product in the analysis;</p></list-item><list-item><label>iii.</label>
      <p id="d1e4973">similar resolution, which allows pixel-to-pixel intercomparison.</p></list-item></list>
Considering these criteria, the MODIS Terra DT&amp;DB AOD product has been
chosen as a reference for evaluation of the SY_2 AOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M273" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
product.</p>
      <p id="d1e4986">The MODIS Terra DT&amp;DB AOD product fulfils two out of the three criteria mentioned
above.
<list list-type="custom"><list-item><label>i.</label>
      <p id="d1e4991">The Sentinel-3 orbit is a near-polar sun-synchronous orbit with a
descending node equatorial crossing at 10:00 mean local solar time. The
MODIS Terra satellite crosses the Equator on descending passes at 10:30–10:45 mean local solar time.</p></list-item><list-item><label>ii.</label>
      <p id="d1e4995">The SLSTR dual-view swath centred on the sub-satellite track is 740 km wide, with a single-view swath width of 1470 km. OLCI covers a swath width of 1270 km. MODIS Terra has a viewing swath width of 2330 km.</p></list-item></list>
The third criterion is not fulfilled since MODIS and SY AOD products are
provided at different resolutions. The resolution of the SY_2
product is 4.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M274" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4.5 km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M275" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, while the MODIS AOD daily product is available at 3 km, 10 km, and 1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M276" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> resolution, the MODIS monthly product is available at 1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M277" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> resolution. Thus, to fulfil the third criterion, we re-gridded the daily SY_2_AOD product to
1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M278" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> resolution for an area of interest (AOI; 30<inline-formula><mml:math id="M279" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S–60<inline-formula><mml:math id="M280" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 80<inline-formula><mml:math id="M281" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W–45<inline-formula><mml:math id="M282" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E) and calculated monthly aggregates. A 1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M283" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> grid resolution was chosen to mitigate collocation uncertainties, smooth the data, and minimise the processing time.</p>
      <p id="d1e5088">Two different approaches exist for evaluation and intercomparison of
satellite monthly AOD. For algorithm performance intercomparison, only the
spatio-temporally collocated pixels from the two products were considered
(used in monthly aggregates). For climate studies (for e.g. model
evaluation, trend analysis) for which existing monthly products are utilised,
an intercomparison should be performed for the products built on all points
available for each instrument.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F27" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{27}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 27</label><caption><p id="d1e5094">For 26 February 2020, all pixels available in S3A
syAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M284" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> <bold>(a)</bold> and MODIS modAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M285" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> <bold>(b)</bold> products.
Pixels existing in both products (collocated products), syAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M286" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> <bold>(c)</bold> and  modAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M287" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> <bold>(d)</bold>, as well as the difference between syAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M288" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and modAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M289" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> <bold>(e)</bold>. For each sub-plot, statistics (mean AOD for the whole area and separately for land and ocean) are shown.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/5289/2022/amt-15-5289-2022-f27.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F28" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{28}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 28</label><caption><p id="d1e5175">Same as Fig. 27 for syFMF; all pixels available in S3A FMF <bold>(a)</bold> and MODIS FMF <bold>(b)</bold> products. Pixels existing in both products (collocated products), S3A FMF <bold>(c)</bold> and MODIS FMF <bold>(d)</bold>, as well as the difference between S3A and MODIS FMF <bold>(e)</bold>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/5289/2022/amt-15-5289-2022-f28.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e5199">SY_2 and MODIS Terra AOD products were intercompared over
the area shown in Figs. 27 and 28. To evaluate and intercompare AOD
products (and thus algorithm performance) in different environments (e.g.
surface type, aerosol type, aerosol loading), subregions shown in
Fig. 29 (top right) were chosen (see Table S7 for details).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F29"><?xmltex \currentcnt{29}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 29</label><caption><p id="d1e5204">Density scatter plots for MODIS Terra and S3A
SY_2_AOD L3 daily collocated products for 2020 for the subregions shown in the top right corner. Statistics are summarised in the Supplement (Table S9).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/5289/2022/amt-15-5289-2022-f29.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S8.SS2">
  <label>8.2</label><title>Intercomparison of daily AOD products</title>
      <p id="d1e5221">All pixels available in S3A SY_2_AOD and MODIS
Terra L3 daily AOD550 products, collocated products, and differences between
collocated products are shown for the whole AOI for 26 February 2020 (Fig. 27). Because of the wider
swath, MODIS has larger coverage than S3A. Thus, when collocating two
products for closer intercomparison, more pixels from the MODIS product are
removed.</p>
      <p id="d1e5224">For the products containing all original pixels for each instrument, the SY_2 AOD mean over the AOI is higher than
MODIS Terra AOD (0.35 and 0.21 for S3A and MODIS, respectively). Mean AOD over land
and over ocean are also higher for S3A. For collocated products, mean (over
the AOI) AOD for S3A and MODIS as well as AOD over ocean come very close to
each other. However, SY_2 FMF (syFMF) over ocean
(Fig. 28) is lower than MODIS FMF (modFMF). Also, there are
regional differences mainly over a possible dust overflow over the Atlantic. MODIS provides higher AOD over the dust plume. Lower modAOD on the
west of the plume may be explained by the offset between MODIS Terra and S3A
overpass time. Over land, mean AOD is slightly lower for S3A for collocated
pixels, and modFMF over bright surface (Sahara) is missing; over other regions
the difference between syFMF and modFMF is lower compared to ocean.</p>
      <p id="d1e5227">For the chosen day, for S3A, a sharp transition between AOD retrieved over
land and ocean at the west coast of Africa is revealed. This feature is
clearly seen in the S3A and MODIS AOD difference plot. This can be explained
by the land–surface gradient in the syFMF (Fig. 28). A large AOD gradient in S3A data is observed over Nigeria; the
inconsistency with MODIS data reaches above <inline-formula><mml:math id="M290" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.5 AOD in this area.
MODIS FMF is not provided in this area.</p>
      <p id="d1e5237">For the whole year of 2020, S3A SY_2 and MODIS AOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M291" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> pixel-level intercomparisons of 1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M292" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M293" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M294" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> daily
products for chosen subregions are shown as density scatter plots in
Fig. 29.</p>
      <p id="d1e5275">In the Europe region, which includes parts of eastern and southern Europe and
the Middle East, AOD is low (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M295" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.4) in both products in general.
However, several outliers are observed in the SY_2 product
(SY_2 AOD is in the range 1–4, while MODIS AOD is below 0.5).
A possible reason for disagreement can be that SY_2 AOD was
retrieved in cloud edge, while MODIS has been retrieving AOD in clear-sky
conditions (given ca. 30 min difference between overpasses). If this is true,
SY_2 cloud screening should be improved to better distinguish
between aerosol and clouds in cloud edge areas. The outlier cases should be
studied separately to better understand the reason for disagreement.</p>
      <p id="d1e5285">In the desert area the disagreement between the two products is most
significant. For MODIS AOD in the range 0–0.8 most of the SY_2 pixels have AOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M296" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.2, while there are also a considerable number
of SY_2 pixels with AOD in the range 1–4. For MODIS AOD above
0.8, SY_2 AOD is often low, which is confirmed by bin results averaged
over MODIS AOD (magenta dots in Fig. 29). The high surface reflectance typical of this area is challenging for
aerosol retrieval. The large variance observed in the AOD comparison
indicates that a more detailed intercomparison including the surface
reflectance values retrieved by each algorithm should be performed. Over
clean ocean and ocean<inline-formula><mml:math id="M297" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>dust subregions, agreement between
SY_2 and MODIS AOD is quite good for modAOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M298" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 and
modAOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M299" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.8, respectively; for higher AOD, syAOD is lower than
MODIS AOD.</p>
      <p id="d1e5316">In the coast<inline-formula><mml:math id="M300" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>dust area (over which biomass burning aerosols can be transported
occasionally), AOD averaged over bins is biased slightly positive for
AOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M301" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.2, which results from SY_2 positive outliers,
while for AOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M302" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.2 SY_2 AOD is often much lower
than MODIS AOD, and thus binned averaged AOD is biased negative.</p>
      <p id="d1e5340">The footprints for SY_2 and MODIS AOD look similar in the two
areas with a seasonal contribution of biomass burning aerosols (Africa,BB and
S.America,BB). Agreement between SY_2 and MODIS is good
for MODIS AOD below 1.2. Above that threshold, SY_2 AOD is on
average lower.</p>
      <p id="d1e5343">Overall, the majority of data are in the low AOD range, in which agreement is
decent (with SY_2 slightly high biased), but at higher AOD
there is much more variance (partly due to the scarcity of data) and in
general a slight low bias for SY_2.</p>
      <p id="d1e5346">Seasonal comparison is shown in Fig. S13 in the Supplement. Annual and seasonal
statistics for SY_2 and MODIS Terra for all daily pixel AOD
intercomparisons are summarised in the Supplement (Table S8).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S8.SS3">
  <label>8.3</label><title>Spatial intercomparison of seasonal and annual S3A and MODIS Terra AOD products</title>
      <p id="d1e5357">Two types of monthly datasets have been created from SY_2_AOD and MODIS Terra daily data to study the differences at the
monthly, seasonal, and annual (MSA) level.</p>
      <p id="d1e5360">In the first monthly dataset, all pixels available in the SY_2_AOD and MODIS Terra daily products have been used to build
a monthly aggregate for each instrument. Intercomparison of
these “all-pixel” monthly aggregates (which are similar to the official
monthly products provided for users) is important because it will help in
e.g. understanding the difference in climate data records built
from the provided monthly AOD products which include all available data.</p>
      <p id="d1e5363">A second monthly dataset, the “collocated” product, has been aggregated using
only collocated daily pixels. Intercomparison of collocated monthly
aggregates shows the difference in monthly AOD based on differences in
retrieval approaches.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F30" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{30}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 30</label><caption><p id="d1e5369">For the year 2020, annual S3A SY_2_AOD <bold>(a, d)</bold>, MODIS Terra <bold>(b, e)</bold> AOD, and the difference between S3A
and MODIS Terra <bold>(c, f)</bold> AOD. Annual means are calculated from monthly
aggregates combined from all data available in each product <bold>(a–c)</bold>
and pixels of collocated daily AOD <bold>(d–f)</bold>. AOD mean and the difference between SY_2 and MODIS AOD for the whole area, as well as
separately for land and ocean, are shown on the maps.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/5289/2022/amt-15-5289-2022-f30.jpg"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F31" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{31}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 31</label><caption><p id="d1e5395">Seasonal (top down: DJF, MAM, JJA, SON) S3A (left panel), MODIS
Terra (middle panel) AOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M303" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, and the difference in AOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M304" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> between S3A
and MODIS Terra (right panel); from monthly aggregates created from
collocated daily S3A and MODIS Terra AOD products.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/5289/2022/amt-15-5289-2022-f31.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e5422">Annual AOD from all-pixel and collocated monthly datasets for
SY_2_AOD and MODIS Terra, respectively, as well as
the corresponding differences are shown in Fig. 30. Seasonal plots for collocated aggregates and the difference between them
are shown in Fig. 31. Statistics for difference
plots (area, land, and ocean means) have been calculated from pixel-to-pixel
difference, but not as the difference between the AOD averaged over AOI, land,
and ocean.</p>
      <p id="d1e5425">Differences between SY_2_AOD and MODIS Terra
MSA AOD exist in both the all-pixel and collocated datasets. For both
datasets, SY_2 AOD averaged over AOI is higher for the whole
area, as well as for land and ocean. The difference is smoother for the all-pixel datasets. Even though difference plots show that regional offset
between the two datasets is often within GCOS requirements for AOD quality (0.03)
over ocean (SY_2 AOD is in general lower) and the whole AOI, the
difference in AOD over land is often higher (up to 0.11 as averaged over AOI
in DJF, all-pixel dataset).</p>
      <p id="d1e5428">Regional differences in seasonal AOD from the collocated dataset are
considerably higher (Fig. 31). For all land
subregions (except for “desert”, JJA), S3A AOD is higher than MODIS AOD.
The offset is highest for the “coast<inline-formula><mml:math id="M305" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>dust” region in DJF and for the “Africa,BB”
region in SON (0.18 and 0.15, respectively). A general tendency of decreasing
offset towards JJA months has been observed. However, though the offset is
often high, time series for both products are within an overlap (grey area)
of the standard deviations for individual products. The highest negative offset
(between 0.05 and 0.1) is observed in JJA in the desert region. Regional
differences in seasonal AOD from the all-pixel dataset are less scattered (Fig. S14, Supplement).</p>
      <p id="d1e5439">For the open-ocean regions (“ocean, clean”, and “ocean<inline-formula><mml:math id="M306" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>dust”), S3A AOD is in general lower than MODIS AOD for all MSA; the exceptions are January and February in the ocean<inline-formula><mml:math id="M307" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>dust region (Figures not shown). On the annual scale, the offset between S3A and MODIS AOD is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M308" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.02 for ocean<inline-formula><mml:math id="M309" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>dust and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M310" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.03 for ocean and clean. AOD in the collocated dataset is higher compared to the all-pixel dataset for both S3A SY_2 and MODIS Terra. Comparing with all pixels and collocated, the SY_2 AOD product looks less
smooth over northern Africa in DJF and MAM.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S9" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>9</label><title>Conclusions and recommendations for future evolution</title>
      <p id="d1e5486">We have presented the first validation of a new SYNERGY global aerosol
product, derived from the data from the OLCI and SLSTR sensors aboard the
Sentinel-3A and Sentinel-3B satellites. Combined, the two satellites provide close
to daily global coverage and provide aerosol measurements with a latency of
2–3 d. In this study we have compared the aerosol product with
ground-based photometer data from four networks: AERONET, SKYNET, SURFRAD,
and MAN, as well as with MODIS combined Dark Target and Deep Blue algorithms. The
aim of this study was to provide global characterisation of the current
aerosol retrieval and to guide future algorithm development.</p>
      <p id="d1e5489">Over ocean, the performance of SYNERGY-retrieved AOD is good and consistent
with the reference MAN dataset (rms <inline-formula><mml:math id="M311" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.05), although the MAN
validation has a limited set of higher-AOD examples. Against MODIS,
agreement is good, although SYNERGY AOD shows lower values at high AOD
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M312" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5) in dust regions, potentially indicating that cloud screening
improvement is needed to correctly detect high dust levels.</p>
      <p id="d1e5506">Over land, overall performance has a much higher rms error of approximately
0.25 when compared to AERONET. Overall AERONET correlation is
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M313" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.6. Reduced performance over land is expected since the
surface reflectance and angular distribution of scattering are higher, and
they are more difficult to treat over land than over ocean. However, the
results show that these statistics are affected by a large number of
outliers. Inspection of these outliers and patterns of disagreement with
MODIS indicate possible reasons and targets for future algorithm evolution.
The main causes are (i) poor screening of snow- and/or ice-covered surfaces and (ii) inadequate cloud screening in some regions. For example, in tropical forest areas, care needs to be taken to fully exclude any pixels containing clouds, including sub-pixel clouds in either nadir or oblique view. In addition, removal of cloud edge pixels (cloud-free pixels next to cloud-masked pixels) should be considered. Bright desert surfaces also have less stable retrieval, with land–ocean contrast suggesting that high values in dust plumes are underestimated over land. Further uncertainty is introduced by an error in a priori estimates of aerosol properties not retrieved, principally
single-scattering albedo (SSA).</p>
      <p id="d1e5516">It is clear that retrievals using dual view give higher quality by making use
of more information to allow less reliance on surface spectral assumptions.
Retrieval over land surface in the Northern Hemisphere shows generally
higher retrieval error, including regions of boreal forest where we would
expect higher-quality retrieval due to the low surface signal. In some
cases, this will be due to weak masking of snow and ice cover as well as the
presence of retrievals made at high solar zenith angles (over 70<inline-formula><mml:math id="M314" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) often excluded in other aerosol datasets. In addition, since the land
retrieval relies on use of the oblique SLSTR view we expect to see higher-quality retrievals in the SH compared to NH. This is due mainly to sampling
of backscattered light by the SLSTR oblique view in NH, where aerosol has a
weak signal and the surface signal is higher, while in SH the geometry is
reversed. Over ocean this is not the case, as the retrieval is not reliant
on the oblique view, and indeed the geometry results in less sunglint in NH
ocean.</p>
      <p id="d1e5529">The retrieval of the Angström exponent, related to aerosol size
distribution, shows spatial correlation with expected sources but generally
overestimates AE for cases in which AERONET Angström is low, resulting in
overall high bias. This is dependent on the retrieval of the fine-mode fraction
in the algorithm, which needs to be investigated further and improved.
Evaluation of the per-retrieval uncertainty indicated good correlation with
measured error distributions, with overprediction of expected error in the dual-view case and underprediction in the single-view case. Evaluation of the
uncertainty propagation is difficult in the presence of outliers which do
not fit the algorithm assumptions, for which we see a tail of higher errors, for
example related to undetected cloud in the input data.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="dataavailability"><title>Data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e5536">The SY_2_AOD product is available upon subscription at
<uri>https://scihub.copernicus.eu/dhus/#/home</uri> (last access: 13 March 2022; S3 Production Service-ACRI, 2022; S3 Production Service-SERCO, 2022). The SY_2_AOD product validation matchups are available upon subscription at  <uri>https://law.acri-st.fr/home</uri> (last access: 10 January 2022; LAW consortium, 2022).​​​​​​</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d1e5546">The supplement related to this article is available online at: <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-5289-2022-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-5289-2022-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e5555">CH, LS, and SD created the original research framework and provided research
direction. MD and CH established a database. LS developed a validation
strategy, wrote the software, and performed the analysis. PK co-wrote the
software. LS, THV, PN, CH, SS, and SD co-wrote the paper.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e5561">The contact author has declared that none of the authors has any competing interests.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="disclaimer"><title>Disclaimer</title>

      <p id="d1e5567">Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e5573">This research has been performed in the framework of the ESA/Copernicus LAW and OPT-MPC projects supported by the EU Copernicus programme (grant nos. 4000129877/20/I-BG and 4000136252/21/I-Bgi, respectively).</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e5578">This research has been supported by the EU Copernicus program (project LAW, grant no. 4000129877/20/I-BG; project OPT-MPC, grant no. 4000136252/21/I-Bgi) and ESA.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e5584">This paper was edited by Alexander Kokhanovsky and reviewed by Stefan Kinne and two anonymous referees.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Arbor, A., Briley, L., Dougherty, R., Wells, K., Hercula, T., Notaro, M.,
Rood, R., Andresen, J., Marsik, F., Prosperi, A., Jorns, J., Channell, K.,
Hutchinson, S., Kemp, C., and Gates, O.: A Practitioner's Guide to Climate
Model Scenarios, Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessments (GLISA), University of Michigan, Michigan State University, NOAA,
<uri>https://glisa.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/A_Practitioners_Guide_to_Climate_Model_Scenarios.pdf</uri> (last access: 9 September 2022), 2021.​​​​​​​</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Bergquist, P. and Warshaw, C.: Does global warming increase public concern
about climate change?, J. Polit., 81, 686–691, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Bevan, S. L., North, P. R. J., Los, S. O., and Grey, W. M. F.: A global dataset of atmospheric aerosol optical depth and surface reflectance from AATSR, Remote Sens. Environm., 116, 119–210, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Borowitz, M.: Open space. The global effort for open access to environmental
satellite data, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 432 pp., ISBN 9780262037181, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Chu, D. A., Kaufman, Y. J., Ichoku, C., Remer, L. A., Tanre, D., and Holben,
B. N.: Validation of MODIS aerosol optical depth retrieval over land,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, 8007, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001GL013205" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2001GL013205</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS): Space Agency Response to GCOS Implementation Plan, Coordination Group for Meteorological Satellites (CGMS), The Joint CEOS/CGMS Working Group on Climate (WGClimate), <uri>http://ceos.org/document_management/Working_Groups/WGClimate/Documents/Space%20Agency%20Response%20to%20GCOS%20IP%20v2.2.1.pdf</uri> (lsat access: 9 September 2022), 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Cox, C. and Munk, W.: Measurements of the roughness of the sea surface from
photographs of the Sun's glitter, J. Opt. Soc. Am., 44, 838–850, 1954.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Davies, W. H. and North, P. R. J.: Synergistic angular and spectral estimation of aerosol properties using CHRIS/PROBA-1 and simulated Sentinel-3 data, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 8, 1719–1731, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-1719-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-8-1719-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>de Leeuw, G., Holzer-Popp, T., Bevan, S., Davies, W., Descloitres, J.,
Grainger, R.G., Griesfeller, J., Heckel, A., Kinne, S., Klüser, L.,
Kolmonen, P., Litvinov, P., Martynenko, D., North, P. J. R., Ovigneur, B.,
Pascal, N., Poulsen, C., Ramon, D., Schulz, M., Siddans, R., Sogacheva, L.,
Tanré, D., Thomas, G. E., Virtanen, T. H., von Hoyningen Huene, W.,
Vountas, M., and Pinnock, S.: Evaluation of seven European aerosol optical
depth retrieval algorithms for climate analysis, Remote Sens. Environ., 162, 295–315, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2013.04.023" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.rse.2013.04.023</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Dubovik, O., Schuster, G. L., Xu, F., Hu, Y., Bösch, H., Landgraf, J.,
and Li, Z.: Grand Challenges in Satellite Remote Sensing, Front. Remote
Sens., 2, 619818, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3389/frsen.2021.619818" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3389/frsen.2021.619818</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Eck, T. F., Holben, B. N., Reid, J. S., Dubovik, O., Smirnov, A., O'Neill,
N. T., Slutsker, I., and Kinne, S.: Wavelength dependence of the optical
depth of biomass burning, urban, and desert dust aerosols, J. Geophys. Res.,
104, 31333–31349, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JD900923" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/1999JD900923</ext-link>, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>ESA climate office: Aerosol portal,
<uri>https://climate.esa.int/en/projects/aerosol/key-documents/</uri>, last access: 25 February 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Eyre, J. R., Bell, W., Cotton, J., English, S. J., Forsythe, M., Healy, S.
B., and Pavelin, E. G.: Assimilation of satellite data in numerical weather
prediction. Part II: Recent years, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 146, 1–36, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4228" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.4228</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>GCOS: <uri>https://ane4bf-datap1.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/wmod8_gcos/s3fs-public/aerosols_ecv_factsheet_201905.pdf?Sv_8X3rsnl_rqNQVLEIg5gzig53zTHox</uri> (last access: 25 February 2022), 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Giles, D. M., Sinyuk, A., Sorokin, M. G., Schafer, J. S., Smirnov, A., Slutsker, I., Eck, T. F., Holben, B. N., Lewis, J. R., Campbell, J. R., Welton, E. J., Korkin, S. V., and Lyapustin, A. I.: Advancements in the Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET) Version 3 database – automated near-real-time quality control algorithm with improved cloud screening for Sun photometer aerosol optical depth (AOD) measurements, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 12, 169–209, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-169-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-12-169-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gliß, J., Mortier, A., Schulz, M., Andrews, E., Balkanski, Y., Bauer, S. E., Benedictow, A. M. K., Bian, H., Checa-Garcia, R., Chin, M., Ginoux, P., Griesfeller, J. J., Heckel, A., Kipling, Z., Kirkevåg, A., Kokkola, H., Laj, P., Le Sager, P., Lund, M. T., Lund Myhre, C., Matsui, H., Myhre, G., Neubauer, D., van Noije, T., North, P., Olivié, D. J. L., Rémy, S., Sogacheva, L., Takemura, T., Tsigaridis, K., and Tsyro, S. G.: AeroCom phase III multi-model evaluation of the aerosol life cycle and optical properties using ground- and space-based remote sensing as well as surface in situ observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 87–128, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-87-2021" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-21-87-2021</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Harris, R. and Baumann, I.: Open data policies and satellite Earth
observation, Space Policy, 32, 44–53, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2015.01.001" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.spacepol.2015.01.001</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hoffmann, R., Muttarak, R., Peisker, J., and Stanig, P.: Climate change
experiences raise environmental concerns and promote Green voting, Nat.
Clim. Chang., 12, 148–155, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01263-8" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41558-021-01263-8</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Holben, B. N., Eck, T. F., Slutsker, I., Tanré, D., Buis, J. P., Setzer,
A., Vermote, E., Reagan, J.A., Kaufman, Y., Nakajima, T., Lavenu, F.,
Jankowiak, I., and Smirnov, A.: AERONET – A federated instrument network
and data archive for aerosol characterization, Remote Sens. Environ., 66,
1–16, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Holzer-Popp, T., de Leeuw, G., Griesfeller, J., Martynenko, D., Klüser, L., Bevan, S., Davies, W., Ducos, F., Deuzé, J. L., Graigner, R. G., Heckel, A., von Hoyningen-Hüne, W., Kolmonen, P., Litvinov, P., North, P., Poulsen, C. A., Ramon, D., Siddans, R., Sogacheva, L., Tanre, D., Thomas, G. E., Vountas, M., Descloitres, J., Griesfeller, J., Kinne, S., Schulz, M., and Pinnock, S.: Aerosol retrieval experiments in the ESA Aerosol_cci project, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 6, 1919–1957, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-1919-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-6-1919-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ichoku, C., Chu, D. A., Chu, S., Kaufman, Y. J., Remer, L. A., Tanré,
D., Slutsker, I., and Holben, B. N.: A spatio-temporal approach for global
validation and analysis of MODIS aerosol products, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
29, 8006, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001GL013206" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2001GL013206</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Julien, Y. and Sobrino, J. A.: NOAA-AVHRR Orbital Drift Correction:
Validating Methods Using MSG-SEVIRI Data as a Benchmark Dataset, Remote
Sens., 13, 925, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13050925" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/rs13050925</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Khaki, M., Hendricks Franssen, H. J., and Han, S. C.: Multi-mission satellite
remote sensing data for improving land hydrological models via data
assimilation, Sci. Rep. 10, 18791, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-75710-5" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41598-020-75710-5</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kinne, S., O'Donnel, D., Stier, P., Kloster, S., Zhang, K., Schmidt, H., Rast, S., Giorgetta, M., Eck, T. F., and Stevens, B.: MAC-v1: A new global aerosol climatology for climate studies, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 5, 704–740, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jame.20035" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/jame.20035</ext-link>​​​​​​​, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Koepke, P.: Effective Reflectance of Oceanic Whitecaps, Appli. Optics,
23, 1816–1824, 1984.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>LAW consortium: Collocated AOD Sentinel 3 and ground-based measurements, <uri>https://law.acri-st.fr/home</uri>, last access: 10 January 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Rosenthal, S., Kotcher, J., Bergquist, P.,
Ballew, M., Goldberg, M., Gustafson, A., and Wang, X.: Climate Change in the
American Mind: April 2020, Yale University and George Mason University, Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, New Haven, CT,
<uri>https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/climate-change-in-the-american-mind-april-2020/</uri>
(last access: 14 February 2022), 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Levy, R. C., Mattoo, S., Munchak, L. A., Remer, L. A., Sayer, A. M., Patadia, F., and Hsu, N. C.: The Collection 6 MODIS aerosol products over land and ocean, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 6, 2989–3034, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-2989-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-6-2989-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Loew, A., Bell, W., Brocca, L., Bulgin, C. E., Burdanowitz, J., Calbet, X.,
Donner, R. V., Ghent, D., Gruber, A., Kaminski, T., Kinzel, J., Klepp, C.,
Lambert, J.-C., Schaepman-Strub, G., Schröder, M., and Verhoelst, T.:
Validation practices for satellite-based Earth observation data across
communities, Rev. Geophys., 55, 779–817, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017RG000562" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2017RG000562</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Meehl, G.A., Stocker, T. F., Collins, W. D., Friedlingstein, P., Gaye, A.
T., Gregory, J. M., Kitoh, A., Knutti, R., Murphy, J. M., Noda, A., Raper,
S. C. B., Watterson, I. G., Weaver, A. J., and Zhao, Z.-C.: Global Climate
Projections, in: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, 747–846, <uri>https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/</uri> (last access: 13 March 2022), 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Monahan, E. C. and O'Muircheartaigh, I.: Optimal power-law description of
oceanic whitecap dependence on wind speed, J. Phys. Oceanogr.,
10, 2094–2099, 1980.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Morel, A.: Optical modeling of the upper ocean in relation to its biogenous
matter content (case I waters), J. Geoph. Res., 93, 10749–10768, 1988.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Morys, M., Mims III, F. M., Hagerup, S., Anderson, E., Baker, A., Kia, J.,
and Walkup, T.: Design, calibration, and performance of MICROTOPS II
handheld ozone S. monitor and Sun photometer, J. Geophys. Res., 106,
14573–14582, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD900103" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2001JD900103</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>North, P. and Heckel, A.: AOD-SYN Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document, V 1.12, S3-L2-AOD-SYN-ATBD, Swansea University,
<uri>https://sentinels.copernicus.eu/documents/247904/0/SYN_L2-3_ATBD.pdf/8dfd9043-5881-4b38-aae5-86fb9034a94d</uri> (last access: 9 September 2022), 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>North, P. R. J.: Estimation of aerosol opacity and land surface
bidirectional reflectance from ATSR-2 dual-angle imagery: Operational method
and validation, J. Geophys. Res., 107, 4149, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD000207" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2000JD000207</ext-link>​​​​​​​, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>North, P. R. J., Brockmann, C., Fischer, J., Gomez-Chova, L., Grey, W., Heckle A., Moreno, J., Preusker, R., and Regner, P.: MERIS/AATSR synergy algorithms for cloud screening, aerosol retrieval and atmospheric correction, in: Proc. 2nd MERIS/AATSR User Workshop, ESRIN, Frascati, 22–26 September 2008 (CD-ROM), ESA SP-666, ESA Publications Division, European Space Agency,
Noordwijk, the Netherlands, <uri>http://ggluck.swansea.ac.uk/ftp/SYNERGY/Synergy_Aerosol_Land_ATBD_20100316.pdf</uri> (last access: 16 September 2022), 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Olbrich, P.: Open space: The global effort for open access to environmental
satellite data, Astropolitics, 16, 230–236, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>O'Neill, N., Eck, T. F., Smirnov, A., Holben, B. N., and Thulasiraman, S.: Spectral discrimination of coarse and fine mode optical depth, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 108, 4559, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002975" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2002JD002975</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Popp, T., de Leeuw, G., Bingen, C., Brühl, C., Capelle, V., Chedin, A.,
Clarisse, L., Dubovik, O., Grainger, R., Griesfeller, J., Heckel, A., Kinne,
S., Klüser, L., Kosmale, M., Kolmonen, P., Lelli, L., Litvinov, P., Mei,
L., North, P., Pinnock, S., Povey, A., Robert, C., Schulz, M., Sogacheva,
L., Stebel, K., Stein Zweers, D., Thomas, G., Tilstra, L.G., Vandenbussche,
S., Veefkind, P., Vountas, M., and Xue, Y.: Development, Production and
Evaluation of Aerosol Climate Data Records from European Satellite
Observations (Aerosol_cci), Remote Sens., 8, 421,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8050421" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/rs8050421</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Remer, L. A., Kaufman, Y. J., Tanré, D., Mattoo, S., Chu, D. A.,
Martins, J. V., Li, R.-R., Ichoku, C., Levy, R. C., Kleidman, R. G., Eck, T.
F., Vermote, E., and Holben, B. N.: The MODIS Aerosol Algorithm, Products,
and Validation, J. Atmos. Sci., 62, 947–973, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Remer, L. A., Mattoo, S., Levy, R. C., and Munchak, L. A.: MODIS 3 km aerosol product: algorithm and global perspective, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 6, 1829–1844, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-1829-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-6-1829-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>S3 Production Service-ACRI: SENTINEL-3 OPTICAL SYNERGY AOD Package, S3A, <uri>https://scihub.copernicus.eu/dhus/#/home</uri>, last access: 13 March 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>S3 Production Service-SERCO: SENTINEL-3 OPTICAL SYNERGY AOD Package, S3B, <uri>https://scihub.copernicus.eu/dhus/#/home</uri>, last access: 13 March 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sayer, A. M., Hsu, N. C., Bettenhausen, C., Ahmad, Z., Holben, B. N.,
Smirnov, A., Thomas, G. E., and Zhang, J.: SeaWiFS Ocean Aerosol Retrieval
(SOAR): Algorithm, validation, and comparison with other data sets, J.
Geophys. Res., 117, D03206, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016599" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011JD016599</ext-link>, 2012a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sayer, A. M., Hsu, N. C., Bettenhausen, C., Jeong, M.-J., Holben, B. N., and Zhang, J.: Global and regional evaluation of over-land spectral aerosol optical depth retrievals from SeaWiFS, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 5, 1761–1778, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-5-1761-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-5-1761-2012</ext-link>, 2012b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sayer, A. M., Hsu, N. C., Bettenhausen, C., and Jeong, M.-J.: Validation and
uncertainty estimates for MODIS Collection 6 “Deep Blue” aerosol data, J.
Geophys. Res., 118, 7864–7872, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50600" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/jgrd.50600</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sayer, A. M., Hsu, N. C., Lee, J., Kim, W. V., Dubovik, O., Dutcher, S. T.,
Huang, D., Litvinov, P., Lyapustin, A., Tackett, J. L., and Winker, D. M.:
Validation of SOAR VIIRS over-water aerosol retrievals and context within
the global satellite aerosol data record, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 123,
13496–13526, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD029465" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2018JD029465</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sayer, A. M., Hsu, N. C., Lee, J., Kim, W., and Dutcher, S.: Validation,
stability, and consistency of MODIS Collection 6.1 and VIIRS Version 1 Deep
Blue aerosol data over land, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124, 4658–4688,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD029598" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2018JD029598</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sayer, A. M., Govaerts, Y., Kolmonen, P., Lipponen, A., Luffarelli, M., Mielonen, T., Patadia, F., Popp, T., Povey, A. C., Stebel, K., and Witek, M. L.: A review and framework for the evaluation of pixel-level uncertainty estimates in satellite aerosol remote sensing, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 13, 373–404, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-373-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-13-373-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Shi, Y., Zhang, J., Reid, J. S., Hyer, E. J., and Hsu, N. C.: Critical evaluation of the MODIS Deep Blue aerosol optical depth product for data assimilation over North Africa, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 6, 949–969, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-949-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-6-949-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Smirnov, A., Holben, B. N., Sakerin, S. M., Kabanov, D. M., Slutsker, I., Chin, M., Diehl, T. L., Remer, L. A., Kahn, R., Ignatov, A., Liu, L., Mishchenko, M., Eck, T. F., Kucsera, T. L., Giles, D., and Kopelevich, O. V.: Ship-Based Aerosol Optical Depth Measurements in the Atlantic Ocean: Comparison with Satellite Retrievals and Gocart Model, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L14817, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL026051" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006GL026051</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Smirnov, A., Holben, B. N., Slutsker, I., Giles, D. M., McClain, C. R.,
Eck, T. F., Sakerin, S. M., Macke, A., Croot, P., Zibordi, G., Quinn, P. K., Sciare, J., Kinne, S., Harvey, M., Smyth, T. J., Piketh, S., Zielinski, T., Proshutinsky, A., Goes, J. I., Nelson, N. B., Larouche, P., Radionov, V. F., Goloub, P., Krishna Moorthy, K., Matarrese, R., Robertson, E. J., and Jourdin, F.: Maritime Aerosol
Network as a component of Aerosol Robotic Network, J. Geophys. Res., 114,
D06204, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD011257" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008JD011257</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Smirnov, A., Holben, B. N., Giles, D. M., Slutsker, I., O'Neill, N. T., Eck, T. F., Macke, A., Croot, P., Courcoux, Y., Sakerin, S. M., Smyth, T. J., Zielinski, T., Zibordi, G., Goes, J. I., Harvey, M. J., Quinn, P. K., Nelson, N. B., Radionov, V. F., Duarte, C. M., Losno, R., Sciare, J., Voss, K. J., Kinne, S., Nalli, N. R., Joseph, E., Krishna Moorthy, K., Covert, D. S., Gulev, S. K., Milinevsky, G., Larouche, P., Belanger, S., Horne, E., Chin, M., Remer, L. A., Kahn, R. A., Reid, J. S., Schulz, M., Heald, C. L., Zhang, J., Lapina, K., Kleidman, R. G., Griesfeller, J., Gaitley, B. J., Tan, Q., and Diehl, T. L.: Maritime aerosol network as a component of AERONET – first results and comparison with global aerosol models and satellite retrievals, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 4, 583–597, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-4-583-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-4-583-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sogacheva, L., Kolmonen, P., Virtanen, T. H., Rodriguez, E., Saponaro, G., and de Leeuw, G.: Post-processing to remove residual clouds from aerosol optical depth retrieved using the Advanced Along Track Scanning Radiometer, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 10, 491–505, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-491-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-10-491-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sogacheva, L., de Leeuw, G., Rodriguez, E., Kolmonen, P., Georgoulias, A. K., Alexandri, G., Kourtidis, K., Proestakis, E., Marinou, E., Amiridis, V., Xue, Y., and van der A, R. J.: Spatial and seasonal variations of aerosols over China from two decades of multi-satellite observations – Part 1: ATSR (1995–2011) and MODIS C6.1 (2000–2017), Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 11389–11407, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-11389-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-18-11389-2018</ext-link>, 2018a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sogacheva, L., Rodriguez, E., Kolmonen, P., Virtanen, T. H., Saponaro, G., de Leeuw, G., Georgoulias, A. K., Alexandri, G., Kourtidis, K., and van der A, R. J.: Spatial and seasonal variations of aerosols over China from two decades of multi-satellite observations – Part 2: AOD time series for 1995–2017 combined from ATSR ADV and MODIS C6.1 and AOD tendency estimations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 16631–16652, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-16631-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-18-16631-2018</ext-link>, 2018b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sogacheva, L., Popp, T., Sayer, A. M., Dubovik, O., Garay, M. J., Heckel, A., Hsu, N. C., Jethva, H., Kahn, R. A., Kolmonen, P., Kosmale, M., de Leeuw, G., Levy, R. C., Litvinov, P., Lyapustin, A., North, P., Torres, O., and Arola, A.: Merging regional and global aerosol optical depth records from major available satellite products, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 2031–2056, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-2031-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-20-2031-2020</ext-link>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Takamura, T. and Nakajima, T.: Overview of SKYNET and its activities, Opt.
Pura Apl. 37, 3303–3308, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wei, J., Li, Z. Q., Peng, Y. R., and Sun, L.: MODIS Collection 6.1 aerosol
optical depth products over land and ocean: Validation and comparison,
Atmos. Environ., 201, 428–440, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.12.004" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.12.004</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Extended validation and evaluation of the OLCI–SLSTR SYNERGY aerosol product (SY_2_AOD) on Sentinel-3</article-title-html>
<abstract-html/>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Arbor, A., Briley, L., Dougherty, R., Wells, K., Hercula, T., Notaro, M.,
Rood, R., Andresen, J., Marsik, F., Prosperi, A., Jorns, J., Channell, K.,
Hutchinson, S., Kemp, C., and Gates, O.: A Practitioner's Guide to Climate
Model Scenarios, Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessments (GLISA), University of Michigan, Michigan State University, NOAA,
<a href="https://glisa.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/A_Practitioners_Guide_to_Climate_Model_Scenarios.pdf" target="_blank"/> (last access: 9 September 2022), 2021.​​​​​​​
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Bergquist, P. and Warshaw, C.: Does global warming increase public concern
about climate change?, J. Polit., 81, 686–691, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Bevan, S. L., North, P. R. J., Los, S. O., and Grey, W. M. F.: A global dataset of atmospheric aerosol optical depth and surface reflectance from AATSR, Remote Sens. Environm., 116, 119–210, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Borowitz, M.: Open space. The global effort for open access to environmental
satellite data, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 432 pp., ISBN 9780262037181, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Chu, D. A., Kaufman, Y. J., Ichoku, C., Remer, L. A., Tanre, D., and Holben,
B. N.: Validation of MODIS aerosol optical depth retrieval over land,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, 8007, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001GL013205" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2001GL013205</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS): Space Agency Response to GCOS Implementation Plan, Coordination Group for Meteorological Satellites (CGMS), The Joint CEOS/CGMS Working Group on Climate (WGClimate), <a href="http://ceos.org/document_management/Working_Groups/WGClimate/Documents/Space%20Agency%20Response%20to%20GCOS%20IP%20v2.2.1.pdf" target="_blank"/> (lsat access: 9 September 2022), 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Cox, C. and Munk, W.: Measurements of the roughness of the sea surface from
photographs of the Sun's glitter, J. Opt. Soc. Am., 44, 838–850, 1954.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Davies, W. H. and North, P. R. J.: Synergistic angular and spectral estimation of aerosol properties using CHRIS/PROBA-1 and simulated Sentinel-3 data, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 8, 1719–1731, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-1719-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-1719-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
de Leeuw, G., Holzer-Popp, T., Bevan, S., Davies, W., Descloitres, J.,
Grainger, R.G., Griesfeller, J., Heckel, A., Kinne, S., Klüser, L.,
Kolmonen, P., Litvinov, P., Martynenko, D., North, P. J. R., Ovigneur, B.,
Pascal, N., Poulsen, C., Ramon, D., Schulz, M., Siddans, R., Sogacheva, L.,
Tanré, D., Thomas, G. E., Virtanen, T. H., von Hoyningen Huene, W.,
Vountas, M., and Pinnock, S.: Evaluation of seven European aerosol optical
depth retrieval algorithms for climate analysis, Remote Sens. Environ., 162, 295–315, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2013.04.023" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2013.04.023</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Dubovik, O., Schuster, G. L., Xu, F., Hu, Y., Bösch, H., Landgraf, J.,
and Li, Z.: Grand Challenges in Satellite Remote Sensing, Front. Remote
Sens., 2, 619818, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/frsen.2021.619818" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3389/frsen.2021.619818</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Eck, T. F., Holben, B. N., Reid, J. S., Dubovik, O., Smirnov, A., O'Neill,
N. T., Slutsker, I., and Kinne, S.: Wavelength dependence of the optical
depth of biomass burning, urban, and desert dust aerosols, J. Geophys. Res.,
104, 31333–31349, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JD900923" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JD900923</a>, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
ESA climate office: Aerosol portal,
<a href="https://climate.esa.int/en/projects/aerosol/key-documents/" target="_blank"/>, last access: 25 February 2022.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Eyre, J. R., Bell, W., Cotton, J., English, S. J., Forsythe, M., Healy, S.
B., and Pavelin, E. G.: Assimilation of satellite data in numerical weather
prediction. Part II: Recent years, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 146, 1–36, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4228" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4228</a>, 2022.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
GCOS: <a href="https://ane4bf-datap1.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/wmod8_gcos/s3fs-public/aerosols_ecv_factsheet_201905.pdf?Sv_8X3rsnl_rqNQVLEIg5gzig53zTHox" target="_blank"/> (last access: 25 February 2022), 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Giles, D. M., Sinyuk, A., Sorokin, M. G., Schafer, J. S., Smirnov, A., Slutsker, I., Eck, T. F., Holben, B. N., Lewis, J. R., Campbell, J. R., Welton, E. J., Korkin, S. V., and Lyapustin, A. I.: Advancements in the Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET) Version 3 database – automated near-real-time quality control algorithm with improved cloud screening for Sun photometer aerosol optical depth (AOD) measurements, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 12, 169–209, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-169-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-169-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Gliß, J., Mortier, A., Schulz, M., Andrews, E., Balkanski, Y., Bauer, S. E., Benedictow, A. M. K., Bian, H., Checa-Garcia, R., Chin, M., Ginoux, P., Griesfeller, J. J., Heckel, A., Kipling, Z., Kirkevåg, A., Kokkola, H., Laj, P., Le Sager, P., Lund, M. T., Lund Myhre, C., Matsui, H., Myhre, G., Neubauer, D., van Noije, T., North, P., Olivié, D. J. L., Rémy, S., Sogacheva, L., Takemura, T., Tsigaridis, K., and Tsyro, S. G.: AeroCom phase III multi-model evaluation of the aerosol life cycle and optical properties using ground- and space-based remote sensing as well as surface in situ observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 87–128, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-87-2021" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-87-2021</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Harris, R. and Baumann, I.: Open data policies and satellite Earth
observation, Space Policy, 32, 44–53, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2015.01.001" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2015.01.001</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Hoffmann, R., Muttarak, R., Peisker, J., and Stanig, P.: Climate change
experiences raise environmental concerns and promote Green voting, Nat.
Clim. Chang., 12, 148–155, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01263-8" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01263-8</a>, 2022.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Holben, B. N., Eck, T. F., Slutsker, I., Tanré, D., Buis, J. P., Setzer,
A., Vermote, E., Reagan, J.A., Kaufman, Y., Nakajima, T., Lavenu, F.,
Jankowiak, I., and Smirnov, A.: AERONET – A federated instrument network
and data archive for aerosol characterization, Remote Sens. Environ., 66,
1–16, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Holzer-Popp, T., de Leeuw, G., Griesfeller, J., Martynenko, D., Klüser, L., Bevan, S., Davies, W., Ducos, F., Deuzé, J. L., Graigner, R. G., Heckel, A., von Hoyningen-Hüne, W., Kolmonen, P., Litvinov, P., North, P., Poulsen, C. A., Ramon, D., Siddans, R., Sogacheva, L., Tanre, D., Thomas, G. E., Vountas, M., Descloitres, J., Griesfeller, J., Kinne, S., Schulz, M., and Pinnock, S.: Aerosol retrieval experiments in the ESA Aerosol_cci project, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 6, 1919–1957, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-1919-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-1919-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Ichoku, C., Chu, D. A., Chu, S., Kaufman, Y. J., Remer, L. A., Tanré,
D., Slutsker, I., and Holben, B. N.: A spatio-temporal approach for global
validation and analysis of MODIS aerosol products, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
29, 8006, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001GL013206" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2001GL013206</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Julien, Y. and Sobrino, J. A.: NOAA-AVHRR Orbital Drift Correction:
Validating Methods Using MSG-SEVIRI Data as a Benchmark Dataset, Remote
Sens., 13, 925, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13050925" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13050925</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Khaki, M., Hendricks Franssen, H. J., and Han, S. C.: Multi-mission satellite
remote sensing data for improving land hydrological models via data
assimilation, Sci. Rep. 10, 18791, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-75710-5" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-75710-5</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Kinne, S., O'Donnel, D., Stier, P., Kloster, S., Zhang, K., Schmidt, H., Rast, S., Giorgetta, M., Eck, T. F., and Stevens, B.: MAC-v1: A new global aerosol climatology for climate studies, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 5, 704–740, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jame.20035" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/jame.20035</a>​​​​​​​, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Koepke, P.: Effective Reflectance of Oceanic Whitecaps, Appli. Optics,
23, 1816–1824, 1984.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
LAW consortium: Collocated AOD Sentinel 3 and ground-based measurements, <a href="https://law.acri-st.fr/home" target="_blank"/>, last access: 10 January 2022.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Rosenthal, S., Kotcher, J., Bergquist, P.,
Ballew, M., Goldberg, M., Gustafson, A., and Wang, X.: Climate Change in the
American Mind: April 2020, Yale University and George Mason University, Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, New Haven, CT,
<a href="https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/climate-change-in-the-american-mind-april-2020/" target="_blank"/>
(last access: 14 February 2022), 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Levy, R. C., Mattoo, S., Munchak, L. A., Remer, L. A., Sayer, A. M., Patadia, F., and Hsu, N. C.: The Collection 6 MODIS aerosol products over land and ocean, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 6, 2989–3034, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-2989-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-2989-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Loew, A., Bell, W., Brocca, L., Bulgin, C. E., Burdanowitz, J., Calbet, X.,
Donner, R. V., Ghent, D., Gruber, A., Kaminski, T., Kinzel, J., Klepp, C.,
Lambert, J.-C., Schaepman-Strub, G., Schröder, M., and Verhoelst, T.:
Validation practices for satellite-based Earth observation data across
communities, Rev. Geophys., 55, 779–817, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017RG000562" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2017RG000562</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Meehl, G.A., Stocker, T. F., Collins, W. D., Friedlingstein, P., Gaye, A.
T., Gregory, J. M., Kitoh, A., Knutti, R., Murphy, J. M., Noda, A., Raper,
S. C. B., Watterson, I. G., Weaver, A. J., and Zhao, Z.-C.: Global Climate
Projections, in: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, 747–846, <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/" target="_blank"/> (last access: 13 March 2022), 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Monahan, E. C. and O'Muircheartaigh, I.: Optimal power-law description of
oceanic whitecap dependence on wind speed, J. Phys. Oceanogr.,
10, 2094–2099, 1980.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Morel, A.: Optical modeling of the upper ocean in relation to its biogenous
matter content (case I waters), J. Geoph. Res., 93, 10749–10768, 1988.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Morys, M., Mims III, F. M., Hagerup, S., Anderson, E., Baker, A., Kia, J.,
and Walkup, T.: Design, calibration, and performance of MICROTOPS II
handheld ozone S. monitor and Sun photometer, J. Geophys. Res., 106,
14573–14582, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD900103" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD900103</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
North, P. and Heckel, A.: AOD-SYN Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document, V 1.12, S3-L2-AOD-SYN-ATBD, Swansea University,
<a href="https://sentinels.copernicus.eu/documents/247904/0/SYN_L2-3_ATBD.pdf/8dfd9043-5881-4b38-aae5-86fb9034a94d" target="_blank"/> (last access: 9 September 2022), 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
North, P. R. J.: Estimation of aerosol opacity and land surface
bidirectional reflectance from ATSR-2 dual-angle imagery: Operational method
and validation, J. Geophys. Res., 107, 4149, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD000207" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD000207</a>​​​​​​​, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
North, P. R. J., Brockmann, C., Fischer, J., Gomez-Chova, L., Grey, W., Heckle A., Moreno, J., Preusker, R., and Regner, P.: MERIS/AATSR synergy algorithms for cloud screening, aerosol retrieval and atmospheric correction, in: Proc. 2nd MERIS/AATSR User Workshop, ESRIN, Frascati, 22–26 September 2008 (CD-ROM), ESA SP-666, ESA Publications Division, European Space Agency,
Noordwijk, the Netherlands, <a href="http://ggluck.swansea.ac.uk/ftp/SYNERGY/Synergy_Aerosol_Land_ATBD_20100316.pdf" target="_blank"/> (last access: 16 September 2022), 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Olbrich, P.: Open space: The global effort for open access to environmental
satellite data, Astropolitics, 16, 230–236, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
O'Neill, N., Eck, T. F., Smirnov, A., Holben, B. N., and Thulasiraman, S.: Spectral discrimination of coarse and fine mode optical depth, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 108, 4559, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002975" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002975</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Popp, T., de Leeuw, G., Bingen, C., Brühl, C., Capelle, V., Chedin, A.,
Clarisse, L., Dubovik, O., Grainger, R., Griesfeller, J., Heckel, A., Kinne,
S., Klüser, L., Kosmale, M., Kolmonen, P., Lelli, L., Litvinov, P., Mei,
L., North, P., Pinnock, S., Povey, A., Robert, C., Schulz, M., Sogacheva,
L., Stebel, K., Stein Zweers, D., Thomas, G., Tilstra, L.G., Vandenbussche,
S., Veefkind, P., Vountas, M., and Xue, Y.: Development, Production and
Evaluation of Aerosol Climate Data Records from European Satellite
Observations (Aerosol_cci), Remote Sens., 8, 421,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8050421" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8050421</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Remer, L. A., Kaufman, Y. J., Tanré, D., Mattoo, S., Chu, D. A.,
Martins, J. V., Li, R.-R., Ichoku, C., Levy, R. C., Kleidman, R. G., Eck, T.
F., Vermote, E., and Holben, B. N.: The MODIS Aerosol Algorithm, Products,
and Validation, J. Atmos. Sci., 62, 947–973, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Remer, L. A., Mattoo, S., Levy, R. C., and Munchak, L. A.: MODIS 3&thinsp;km aerosol product: algorithm and global perspective, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 6, 1829–1844, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-1829-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-1829-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
S3 Production Service-ACRI: SENTINEL-3 OPTICAL SYNERGY AOD Package, S3A, <a href="https://scihub.copernicus.eu/dhus/#/home" target="_blank"/>, last access: 13 March 2022.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
S3 Production Service-SERCO: SENTINEL-3 OPTICAL SYNERGY AOD Package, S3B, <a href="https://scihub.copernicus.eu/dhus/#/home" target="_blank"/>, last access: 13 March 2022.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Sayer, A. M., Hsu, N. C., Bettenhausen, C., Ahmad, Z., Holben, B. N.,
Smirnov, A., Thomas, G. E., and Zhang, J.: SeaWiFS Ocean Aerosol Retrieval
(SOAR): Algorithm, validation, and comparison with other data sets, J.
Geophys. Res., 117, D03206, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016599" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016599</a>, 2012a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Sayer, A. M., Hsu, N. C., Bettenhausen, C., Jeong, M.-J., Holben, B. N., and Zhang, J.: Global and regional evaluation of over-land spectral aerosol optical depth retrievals from SeaWiFS, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 5, 1761–1778, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-5-1761-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-5-1761-2012</a>, 2012b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Sayer, A. M., Hsu, N. C., Bettenhausen, C., and Jeong, M.-J.: Validation and
uncertainty estimates for MODIS Collection 6 “Deep Blue” aerosol data, J.
Geophys. Res., 118, 7864–7872, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50600" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50600</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Sayer, A. M., Hsu, N. C., Lee, J., Kim, W. V., Dubovik, O., Dutcher, S. T.,
Huang, D., Litvinov, P., Lyapustin, A., Tackett, J. L., and Winker, D. M.:
Validation of SOAR VIIRS over-water aerosol retrievals and context within
the global satellite aerosol data record, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 123,
13496–13526, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD029465" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD029465</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Sayer, A. M., Hsu, N. C., Lee, J., Kim, W., and Dutcher, S.: Validation,
stability, and consistency of MODIS Collection 6.1 and VIIRS Version 1 Deep
Blue aerosol data over land, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124, 4658–4688,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD029598" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD029598</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Sayer, A. M., Govaerts, Y., Kolmonen, P., Lipponen, A., Luffarelli, M., Mielonen, T., Patadia, F., Popp, T., Povey, A. C., Stebel, K., and Witek, M. L.: A review and framework for the evaluation of pixel-level uncertainty estimates in satellite aerosol remote sensing, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 13, 373–404, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-373-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-373-2020</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Shi, Y., Zhang, J., Reid, J. S., Hyer, E. J., and Hsu, N. C.: Critical evaluation of the MODIS Deep Blue aerosol optical depth product for data assimilation over North Africa, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 6, 949–969, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-949-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-949-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Smirnov, A., Holben, B. N., Sakerin, S. M., Kabanov, D. M., Slutsker, I., Chin, M., Diehl, T. L., Remer, L. A., Kahn, R., Ignatov, A., Liu, L., Mishchenko, M., Eck, T. F., Kucsera, T. L., Giles, D., and Kopelevich, O. V.: Ship-Based Aerosol Optical Depth Measurements in the Atlantic Ocean: Comparison with Satellite Retrievals and Gocart Model, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L14817, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL026051" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL026051</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Smirnov, A., Holben, B. N., Slutsker, I., Giles, D. M., McClain, C. R.,
Eck, T. F., Sakerin, S. M., Macke, A., Croot, P., Zibordi, G., Quinn, P. K., Sciare, J., Kinne, S., Harvey, M., Smyth, T. J., Piketh, S., Zielinski, T., Proshutinsky, A., Goes, J. I., Nelson, N. B., Larouche, P., Radionov, V. F., Goloub, P., Krishna Moorthy, K., Matarrese, R., Robertson, E. J., and Jourdin, F.: Maritime Aerosol
Network as a component of Aerosol Robotic Network, J. Geophys. Res., 114,
D06204, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD011257" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD011257</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Smirnov, A., Holben, B. N., Giles, D. M., Slutsker, I., O'Neill, N. T., Eck, T. F., Macke, A., Croot, P., Courcoux, Y., Sakerin, S. M., Smyth, T. J., Zielinski, T., Zibordi, G., Goes, J. I., Harvey, M. J., Quinn, P. K., Nelson, N. B., Radionov, V. F., Duarte, C. M., Losno, R., Sciare, J., Voss, K. J., Kinne, S., Nalli, N. R., Joseph, E., Krishna Moorthy, K., Covert, D. S., Gulev, S. K., Milinevsky, G., Larouche, P., Belanger, S., Horne, E., Chin, M., Remer, L. A., Kahn, R. A., Reid, J. S., Schulz, M., Heald, C. L., Zhang, J., Lapina, K., Kleidman, R. G., Griesfeller, J., Gaitley, B. J., Tan, Q., and Diehl, T. L.: Maritime aerosol network as a component of AERONET – first results and comparison with global aerosol models and satellite retrievals, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 4, 583–597, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-4-583-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-4-583-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
Sogacheva, L., Kolmonen, P., Virtanen, T. H., Rodriguez, E., Saponaro, G., and de Leeuw, G.: Post-processing to remove residual clouds from aerosol optical depth retrieved using the Advanced Along Track Scanning Radiometer, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 10, 491–505, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-491-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-491-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
Sogacheva, L., de Leeuw, G., Rodriguez, E., Kolmonen, P., Georgoulias, A. K., Alexandri, G., Kourtidis, K., Proestakis, E., Marinou, E., Amiridis, V., Xue, Y., and van der A, R. J.: Spatial and seasonal variations of aerosols over China from two decades of multi-satellite observations – Part 1: ATSR (1995–2011) and MODIS C6.1 (2000–2017), Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 11389–11407, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-11389-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-11389-2018</a>, 2018a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
Sogacheva, L., Rodriguez, E., Kolmonen, P., Virtanen, T. H., Saponaro, G., de Leeuw, G., Georgoulias, A. K., Alexandri, G., Kourtidis, K., and van der A, R. J.: Spatial and seasonal variations of aerosols over China from two decades of multi-satellite observations – Part 2: AOD time series for 1995–2017 combined from ATSR ADV and MODIS C6.1 and AOD tendency estimations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 16631–16652, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-16631-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-16631-2018</a>, 2018b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
Sogacheva, L., Popp, T., Sayer, A. M., Dubovik, O., Garay, M. J., Heckel, A., Hsu, N. C., Jethva, H., Kahn, R. A., Kolmonen, P., Kosmale, M., de Leeuw, G., Levy, R. C., Litvinov, P., Lyapustin, A., North, P., Torres, O., and Arola, A.: Merging regional and global aerosol optical depth records from major available satellite products, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 2031–2056, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-2031-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-2031-2020</a>, 2020.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>
Takamura, T. and Nakajima, T.: Overview of SKYNET and its activities, Opt.
Pura Apl. 37, 3303–3308, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>
Wei, J., Li, Z. Q., Peng, Y. R., and Sun, L.: MODIS Collection 6.1 aerosol
optical depth products over land and ocean: Validation and comparison,
Atmos. Environ., 201, 428–440, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.12.004" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.12.004</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
